Allow me to clarify. I 100% agree with requiring accredited investors for ICO participation (or IPO or CryptoKitty speculation, etc). My blue collar parents cou

Allow me to clarify. I 100% agree with requiring accredited investors for ICO participation (or IPO or CryptoKitty speculation, etc). My blue collar parents could hardly be expected to spend the full time effort required to do due diligence on an ICO while they were working 2 jobs to make ends meet. In fact they did quite well investing in mutual funds and receiving a pension from a stable employer. As an aside, I disagree that the current accreditation is a good measure of being "qualified" - anyone who inherited $1M can be accredited - but it's what we got; at least one bad investment decision won't bankrupt a foolish heir. Investing in an ICO has essentially the same risks as investing as an angel or VC. I have both invested and received investment and the due diligence process varies greatly from firm to firm, angel to angel. The good ones make good decisions, largely based on lots of hard work. Anyone interested in investing in an ICO could do the same. I have looked at many ICOs and have probably spent over 100 hours of hard work doing due diligence on the few ICOs that looked legit. I pulled the trigger on one, and passed on many more. To me what ICOs represent are a fundamental shift in the marketplace from a closed door, network based, "clubby" process to a transparent, data rich, open process. Not that they cannot be gamed, especially when early investors get different coin prices, etc. Due diligence is definitely required. The pain this is trying to solve is to allow companies who need access to capital to get it without having to visit Sand Hill Road or apply to incubators. It's not a silver bullet, it's just a different way. The SEC shutting down scams is a good thing. The SEC chilling all ICOs is a bad thing and protects the status quo and limits innovation. A legit business - even if just an idea - should be able to put its idea and data out there and the founder's experience and expertise, and let the market (of professional investors) decide. I think the SEC should have a version of some of the Excel sheets you find on Google to check whether an ICO is legit or not. It should not require lawyers. It should be based on Yes or No questions. If a founder can pass that test, the SEC should back off and let the market decide. But yes, ICO participation should be limited to professional investors. But if there is innovation allowed, maybe there could be a retail-focused ETF for ICOs, for example.