> You are leaving out the vacuum created by the regulators. One phase I’ve heard in other situations is that “bad cases make bad law”[0]. IANAL, but my underst

> You are leaving out the vacuum created by the regulators. One phase I’ve heard in other situations is that “bad cases make bad law”[0]. IANAL, but my understanding of this is that because the US is a common law system where precedent influences future outcomes, legal and regulatory bodies are hesitant to take legal action unless the outcome is likely to be in their favor. Loosing cases end up creating legal precedent against the power of the regulatory body. In a greenfield areas where there there is no precedent to point to regulatory agencies end up being served to wait until there is a clear and obvious case to be made to cement their authority. If the SEC were to have taken aggressive action again kinda scammy ICOs early on, it’s possible they could have lost legal action, and hamper their ability to regulate in the future. Waiting for a scam obvious enough for them to win in court gives them legal precedent to successfully pursue more actions in the future. [0] This came up a often on the podcast “All the Presidents’ Lawyers” with Ken White, generally when discussing how and why the DOJ does things.