SEC Chairman Jay Clayton: "I want to go back to separating ICOs and cryptocurrencies. ICOs that are securities offerings, we should regulate them like we regulate securities offerings. End of story."
If that's all it is, how can they possibly make statements like "every ICO so far looks like a security"? Now they're on to the "substance over form" angle. We are left guessing, meanwhile facing threats over possible past mind-reading failures.
They’ve always been clear that it’s substance over form. Can you share an example or two of a potential “mind reading failure” where an ICO substantively does not look like a security but you’re concerned it will be deemed as such?
Problem is the bar for substance is subjective, and they have said every ICO looks like a security so we have to wonder about them all, despite our own strong assessment.