Kraken Joins Coinbase In Rebuking ‘Malicious’ Implications In New York Attorney General’s Exchange Report

Another major U.S. cryptocurrency exchange gave a feedback on a report from New York’s Attorney General Wednesday, September 19, after it decided not to react to a voluntary information request.

Kraken, which is headquartered in California, went along with one of the biggest U.S. players Coinbase in reproving certain parts of Barbara Underwood’s report as out of line.

Saying a few times that Kraken “refused” to partake in providing data, Underwood, the exchange alleges, seemed to propose it had something to stow away, for example, offering services to New York inhabitants without holding a BitLicense.

“We must… object to the highly unprofessional/ malicious implication that because we did not respond to the voluntary information request, we *might* be operating illegally. We told you we don’t operate in NY,” authorities posted on Twitter.

Coinbase had taken Underwood in a blog post after the report guaranteed 20 percent of its trade volume originated from its own staff, a figure Coinbase says was “misreported.”

While Kraken was not the only one in its choice not to supply data, Underwood seemed to single out the trade’s conduct, depicting it as disturbing.

“The (Office of the Attorney General) could not review the practices and procedures of non-participating platforms (Binance, Gate.io, Huobi, and Kraken) concerning manipulative or abusive trading,” one note in the report reads.

“However, the Kraken platform’s public response is alarming. In announcing the company’s decision not to participate in the Initiative, Kraken declared that market manipulation ‘doesn’t matter to most crypto traders,’ even while admitting that ‘scams are rampant’ in the industry.”

The question drew support from Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, while Kraken endeavored to defend its choice before clients who seemed unverifiable over the most appropriate game-plan.

“It’s hard to prove a negative,” authorities wrote in one response.

“Of course, we operate legally. We don’t serve NY and therefore could not possibly be operating illegally in NY. Laws in other jurisdictions will vary and it’s a complex, global issue.”