It is an unfortunate reality that the political party in power largely determines the result of any study conducted by the government. Following the 2008 market crash, the Democratic majority leading the study of the market crash found that the crash had been largely caused by derivatives. If the Republicans had been in the majority, the study would have found that the crash was largely caused by mortgage lending. (See, e.g.,  (June 18, 2010)).

So one can reasonably guess…

The explicit denunciation by the SEC of the obligation to prevent investors from taking risks (and losing money) is significant. It is not the job of the SEC to prevent risk-taking; it is to assure that investors are provided material information through disclosure.

Effectively making all cryptocurrencies "illegal" under the Securities Laws, the SEC under the prior administration prevented the development of a disclosure system that could have enabled investors to make better…

This is, for the reasons noted in the proposal, a very sensible rule amendment. It made no sense that FINRA would impose a stricter rule on broker-dealers than the SEC imposed on investment advisers with respect to the same marketing materials. The divergence in regulatory requirements resulted in situations where, for example, marketing material that could be sent by an investment adviser would be illegal if mailed by a broker-dealer.  

While the courts can rule as they will, ultimately Congress will be the decision maker on this.