> Regardless of the price, an exchange cannot seize customer assets by giving them 10 days notice for withdrawal.
Perhaps, but the legal question is whether a protocol fork as a matter of law creates a new asset owned by the customer, creates a new asset owned by whoever controls the wallet keys, or merely creates an opportunity which someone who controls wallet keys may exploit to generate a new asset by participating in the ecosystem on the new side of the fork.
(Fundamentally, this also lays near the question of legal ownership of Bitcoin or similar cryptocurrency in general and what specifically is “owned” when one owns them.)
While I'm sure that a lawyer can spin in circles arguing semantics over what is bitcoin, the stance that the SEC has taken is that cryptocurrencies are commodity-assets, and therefore any derived assets (forks, etc) are the property of the asset owner.
In what way is a fork a derived asset? Let's say an advertiser, unprompted, decided to send a free DVD to everyone who owns a sailboat. Your sailboat is in storage at a large marina that stores hundreds of sailboats, so the publisher drops a big stack of these DVDs in front of the marina office. Is the ownership of the marina obligated to accept these DVDs and mail one to each owner at its own cost? Receiving unsolicited DVDs is not in your storage contract with the marina.
Interesting analogy! Compare to the one I gave [1]. As you've described it here, I would agree that they don't have an obligation to mail the DVDs out. However, if:
A) The marina owner had entered into a fiduciary relationship with you regarding the possession of your boat to your benefit, and
B) The DVDs were sent to the fiduciary with instructions to be given to the boat owners, and
C) A reasonable person would believe that the boat owner would regard the DVD to have enough value to care about,
Then the marina owner would be obligated to at least ensure that the boat owners can access their DVD, if they wish to, for some reasonable period (say, 60 days). For example, by leaving it with the boat or dropping it in the boat owners' locker at the harbor office, or informing them of their property with the next scheduled communication (in a way that leaves them 60 days etc).
You have a shed to store valuables. Because that's inconvenient for selling your stuff as you live far outside the city, you get a storage unit in the city and move some of your belongings there. There is a big government grant for all storage buildings based on the current value they store. Your shed at home is pretty empty, so you don't get much. The owner of your storage unit gets a lot of money. Does he owe you?
Perhaps, but the legal question is whether a protocol fork as a matter of law creates a new asset owned by the customer, creates a new asset owned by whoever controls the wallet keys, or merely creates an opportunity which someone who controls wallet keys may exploit to generate a new asset by participating in the ecosystem on the new side of the fork.
(Fundamentally, this also lays near the question of legal ownership of Bitcoin or similar cryptocurrency in general and what specifically is “owned” when one owns them.)