It's an interesting strategy for the coin developers to take the battle to the SEC on very favorable facts: the tokens are given away for free and the business is of a type that anyone would hope is successful. Now it's the SEC's move.

This case raises questions as to whether the failures were specific to the attorneys involved or were indicative of broader issues. Might the SEC's actions reflect a political hostility toward crypto that encouraged SEC attorneys to be aggressive to the point of "gross abuse of power"? Is this case another example of the SEC's willingness to take positions which stretch the bounds of its authority, similar to its pursuit of rules under procedures that fail to comply with the ?  

…

The purpose of the CFPB, as , is to "regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws." It is a stretch to get from that purpose, as set forth by Congress, to regulating bank mergers. A recurrent theme in financial regulation is the tendency for financial regulators to interpret their mandates broadly, and perhaps dedicate fewer of their available resources to the matters actually within their purview. None of the…

Public comments on the delay in allowing the listing of an Ethereum-based ETF to go forward appear to indicate that the SEC cannot decide whether the coin is a "security." 

Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency by market value (Bitcoin is largest); it trades in very big volumes (as reported by Forbes on March 21 over $23 billion in a day) and has done so for a long time. By now, the SEC should have formulated a view as to whether Ethereum is a security. If the SEC…