I think everybody is aware by now about the report SEC issued this week, but I believe it can be interpreted in many different ways.
Here is one of them, published by TheMerkle this morning:
https://themerkle.com/blockchain-ceos-respond-to-secs-cryptocurrency-ico-verdict/
So, I was actually about to start my endeavor with ICOs next week, but now I have serious doubts, so maybe somebody would be kind enough to clear them for me:
1. Is there any easy way to classify which ICOs are, and which are NOT "securities" according to SEC?
2. I assume neither BTC, nor ETH are securities, so they don't need to be registered and regulated by SEC, right? Which other cryptos, if any, fall into this category?
3. What about ICOs restricting participation to non-US citizens? How seriously should this ban be taken? Would SEC be the body responsible for enforcing it, providing the company issuing ICO is based in the US?
4. Can ICO, or pre-ICO participation be truly anonymous? If not, at which stage of the process would the identity of an ICO participant be revealed?
I know it's a lot of question for one post and some of them would probably require some serious guessing, but I will appreciate your feedback.
Thanks!
SEC popping in the scene is not that bad IMO. More regulation will make crypto's more attractive to mainstream investors, because unfortunately it currently has a bad reputation with "no real value". So by regulating it the government itself is partially recongnizing it as a legal security, which is huge! Remember that the government is the main opposition of BTC and therefore concending to regulate (and not ban it) is a huge victory for BTC