I don't really understand why people can't accept the SEC's stance when it comes to securities. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what it is today -- you can't change the fact that the initial stage will label certain coins as securities for ever. The SEC said that it will not change anything in this regard, and especially not just to suit the crypto community. Ethereum is a security, and it should be treated as such.
I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that Ethereum passes the Howey Test:
(1) Investment of Money; (2) Common Enterprise; (3) Expectation of Profits; and (4) Solely from the Efforts of Others.
Whether something is an ICO only speaks to the "investment of money" and "common enterprise" aspects. It's crucial that there is an expectation of profit based solely from the efforts of others.
Ethereum seems to fit a grey area because it was not a money-making venture and as I recall, it was not marketed with an expectation of profit based on the issuers' efforts. I'm guessing there's also a distinction between a tokens issued on a centralized platform (like "Munchee") vs. a decentralized platform (like Ethereum). On the latter, the success of the platform largely depends on distributed miners and users, the viability of POW, etc. So any profit derived from the ICO would not be due
solely to the efforts of the Ethereum founders.
