> It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movem

> It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to regulate without being pinned down by public statements he has made in front of congress. Because they're a legal body and what they say off hand is precedent, so of course they have to be measured and thoughtful. This was a shameful display, but not by Gensler. > I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum with SEC lawyers before. Me too, but again, I refer you to the DAO Report and the Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets > But that entire notion belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. They're quite clear, and the whole reason for this kind of maneuver is showboating and pandering. Based on this thread it seems to be working. In a similar vein I'm confident that Brian and his attorneys have spoken and concluded that they're almost 100% certain to be securities, and for that reason, they chose to avoid working with the SEC at all costs at every point along the way. But of course that determination would undermine the business, so off to court we go.