This is not a case of broad precedential value; i.e., it most certainly does not stand for any general proposition that ICOs are not securities. It just held that, under the very particular circumstances of this case, the particular ICOs were not securities, or had not yet reached the point, in light of the status of the offering, where they could be considered securities.

While it would be a wonderful thing if the SEC and the CFTC could reach full agreement on a (sensible) cross-border regulatory approach, there are a few issues on which such agreement is particularly important to decreasing regulatory complexity: the definition of U.S. (non-U.S.) person; the situations in which the involvement of a U.S. agent in ANE for a foreign dealer results in the imposition of U.S. legal requirements; and just what U.S. legal requirements are imposed as a result…

No doubt the SEC believes that crypto-investments are very risky and that they are saving investors, particularly retail investors, from making bad investments. If SEC Commissioners believe that the public offering of crypto-securities constitutes an "emergency" that justifies "aggressive" regulatory action, then, at a minimum, while the SEC stalls exchange-traded crypto products, it should seek legislation endorsing such authority. Presumably, if the authority were granted, it…

No doubt the SEC believes that crypto-investments are very risky and that they are saving investors, particularly retail investors, from making bad investments. If SEC Commissioners believe that the public offering of crypto-securities constitutes an "emergency" that justifies "aggressive" regulatory action, then, at a minimum, while the SEC stalls exchange-traded crypto products, it should seek legislation endorsing such authority. Presumably, if the authority were granted, it would be…