I've heard some people express the view that the SEC is currently willfully undermining due process by continuing to posture but without taking formal action which would entitle the targets to gain access to judicial review. (With an implication that they're doing this because they know their position is likely to be found unlawful.)

It's a similar accusation that I've heard lobbed against the executive branch in recent years: announce a forthcoming executive order, which would be plainly unlawful and ripe for a court to halt but then don't actually formally issue the order -- denying anyone standing to bring action over it. This achieves the intended, unlawful, effect via parties that comply out of ignorance, in preparation, or out of fear that it might suddenly take effect and leave them in the wrong.

I haven't looked into the details -- and don't even know if enough are available-- to figure out if this position is well founded.

Putting aside the due process angle, there is also a parity consideration. The market benefits from clear, enforced rules because absent them the parties most willing to violate the rules while pretending to comply have a competitive advantage. The more clear and the better enforced the rule is, the more level the playing field. It may well be better for coinbase to end up with a decision which significantly restricts their business so long as its clear enough to have the effect of restricting their competition as well -- while it's in the grey competitors with less to lose will be in a better position.

Not even within the SEC they seem to agree with this view. As shown by the plenty dissent letters SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce has sent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/04/19/i-dis...

https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-kraken-0...

https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-rendering-inovatio...

It's pretty clear you haven't actually looked at the parts of the Securities Act they're referencing in the Wells Notice. They all refer to selling securities as an unregistered broker. The part that everyone is trying to argue is whether certain cryptos are securities or not.

You're being disingenuous by saying "the SEC is totally clear!", when in fact, they can't even give a straight answer as to whether ETH (top 3 crypto and probably most used for development) is a security.