I kind of see the point of those who think this is obnoxious and damaging to the rule of law, even if what Grewal says is perfectly true. Just because one part

I kind of see the point of those who think this is obnoxious and damaging to the rule of law, even if what Grewal says is perfectly true. Just because one part of the government thinks something is a security, even for logical reasons, doesn't mean every other part agrees. The SEC is not the supreme and only authority, which means you can't simply obey its whims. Why does it have to be fought out in court with no master plan? If X, Y, and Z are securities, then why can't the government label them as such and enforce that others do? Why can't rules and regulations be made in an orderly fashion so that people know what is legal without costly litigation? I mean, those are rhetorical questions; it seems like the reason is everybody is making it up as they go along and there's no leadership. It's like "move fast and break things" has become so standard that nobody bothers to say "wait, breaking things because you don't look before you leap is wasteful". It's just how we do things here.