With respect to [2], this is what the tokens represented: >>The ruling came in a criminal case against a man charged with promoting digital currencies backed b

With respect to [2], this is what the tokens represented: >>The ruling came in a criminal case against a man charged with promoting digital currencies backed by investments in real estate and diamonds that prosecutors said didn’t exist. That's a traditional security, with the tokens representing physical assets. It is not like most token sales, which are pre-functional utility tokens, which do not purport to confer a legal claim to any asset. Moreover, the individual selling these tokens was blatantly lying about the existence of the real estate and diamonds. So your initial comment is wildly off the mark with respect to what has been "settled" with respect to token sales.