> This seems, to me (a layman), to indicate that most any ICO will fall under "security." Pretty much, yes. Securities are defined very broadly in the US. W

> This seems, to me (a layman), to indicate that most any ICO will fall under "security." Pretty much, yes. Securities are defined very broadly in the US. Why does it surprise you that these are securities? They very obviously are selling a security to investors, who are purchasing it because they expect the price to increase. Open-and-shut case. The fact that there's crypto involved is irrelevant. It really sounds like people are trying to pretend these laws don't apply because they disagree with the laws in question. Which is fine, but let's not pretend like there's any ambiguity here, because there's not. It's extremely clear that almost all ICOs are securities, and if you asked a lawyer I'm 100% sure that's what they would tell you.