>> "They asked for too much, too soon; this presentation is part of the backtracking." The WSJ article is very thin on details, and I suspect is missing import

>> "They asked for too much, too soon; this presentation is part of the backtracking." The WSJ article is very thin on details, and I suspect is missing important nuances. I do not know what happened at the SEC meeting, but my guess is that they pitched something very close to this linked presentation (which you'll note is dated March 13, likely before the SEC meeting). In particular, take a look at slide 11, which tries to bifurcate the world into (i) pre-launch securities and (ii) post-launch live networks, with the latter perhaps being a currency, commodity, security or some other beast, depending on its properties (e.g. a post-launch token with profit sharing features would likely still be a security). These VCs and their lawyers are not morons -- the case for most ICOs being blatant securities offerings is impossible to argue against, but the more narrow view that Nick has outlined has real merit to it and I'm sure is close to what they pitched. Also, I don't disagree that a ham-fisted SEC regulator could easily argue that Filecoin post-launch is a security -- that's precisely the problem. Crypto today can often be treated as a currency, a commodity and a security all at the same time, and often in incompatible ways. The industry _should_ be meeting regulators, and coming to a sane coherent policy on how to treat these things in different contexts (perhaps via well-delineated safe harbors), so that people can continue to innovate without worrying they are breaking the law.