as usual, hackernews’ most vocal audience is too cynical to look at the merits of the case or statement itself, simply because the topic is crypto the merit of

as usual, hackernews’ most vocal audience is too cynical to look at the merits of the case or statement itself, simply because the topic is crypto the merit of the statement is that the SEC has no tool to protect investors here. just like you, they’d wish “crypto” to go away. also just like you, they are not the authority to accomplish that. unlike you, they thought they were and the courts are clarifying what was unclarified, but predictable if you ever looked: the SEC has a limited way of designating everything as securities or curbing any specific transaction from occurring. their charter includes a mission to protect investors, in this case they don’t have the ability to do that. going after a token’s issuer doesn't help investors. investors also learn it doesnt affect the secondary markets whatsoever. but if it did, that would only hurt investors too as the assets becomes illiquid and lower valued, either way thats not actually the case as crypto infrastructure improved to not require exchange companies for most digital assets, autonomous applications facilitate trading now, until going to a primary crypto asset that can be exchanged for government currency on a company run exchange. “crypto” as an amorphous industry and technology is capable of providing transparency to investors/consumers far beyond what the SEC mandates, and it is up to those purchasers to discern and be discerning. The SEC has no bearing on that either way. another part of their charter includes a mission to facilitate capital formation. they could choose to engage that way and do not. instead, the crypto industry becomes more resilient upon every SEC enforcement action, each action publicly disclosing how to operate outside the already limited SEC purview. on designation as securities, its reached its natural peak: either all collectibles like trading cards and limited run sneakers are securities or neither those or crypto tokens are. its also natural to want to play devil’s advocate but the arguments have all been made over the last decade, the courts have sided with the crypto proponents and said they were correct, and crypto cynics were incorrect. or at the very least the SEC should be able to make a cohesive argument about why it hasnt gone after Magic the Gathering trading cards and Nike shoes, and has been unable to explain that in their laser focus on crypto tokens, or how a crypto token could be issued just as compliantly as trading card issuers and sneakerhead drops. The SEC stumbles over itself and has been unable to explain, simply losing the few cases that reach the courts and losing all sympathy in their senate hearings on this topic. Why the court cases now? Well crypto capital formation was successful within 5 years of crypto existing, 5 years after that the SEC targeted some of the ones that were wealthy enough not to settle, and now those are getting opinions of judges that mostly match the crypto company’s lawyers rationale. The only people that looked at the environment with a fresh lens. Fortunately, there are also other regulator bodies that are a better fit and are active in the crypto space. Such as the FTC, which regulates products. And the CFTC which regulates commodity derivatives and when the spot commodity influences those derivatives. Those regulators have not lost sight of their missions and engage in the crypto space in a way that the SEC can take a note from. Those approaches don’t involve crypto going away, and so the SEC just keeps embarrassing itself. The SEC could change its tune, but right now that just bruises its ego, although there are some commissioners that have flipped based on their own enthusiasm about the technology. Congress and the White House are watching the agency’s trainwreck and are also not amused.