I'm curious. How is what was flippantly suggested related to securities fraud?

The SEC has taken a clear position that whether or not it's a "smart contract" or the like makes no material difference into whether or not you are offering a security. Making a cryptocurrency was suggested as a way to finance Tesla's business operations, so it is almost certainly a security in the eyes of the SEC. At this point, your choices are either to sell unregistered securities or to follow SEC rules anyways, at which point, why not just go through conventional channels?

"Fund your business by issuing cryptocurrencies" is an idea that will likely end in defending yourself legally against the SEC. Bad idea. I don't recommend it.

Crytocurrencies serve one purpose very well: they're presently not being prosecuted as Ponzi schemes.

Which they argueably are.

Ponzi?

Yes, thank you. Fixed. Auto-incorrect strikes again.

I don't agree. I believe currencies not backed by countries have a real use in the world, and labeling any and all as a Ponzi scheme is a misnomer. Anything has value if we assign it, and even if 5% of the world considers crypto valuable I'd call that a successful currency, to those who value it.

Value is not the criteria for currency - otherwise Magic cards and Beanie Babies would count.

Currencies must be widely accepted in exchange for goods or services. Crypto is promising, but it's not there yet.

SEC regulates crypto currency issuances now.

Technically, they're claiming that the majority of ICO-style crypto currency issuances have always been under their jurisdiction. They're just not enforcing "Sale of unregistered securities" stuff against ones done before they put the market on notice through their legal findings.