The SEC has $$ and ability to get Guys In Robes(tm) to send Guys With Guns(tm) to enforce its "outdated" laws.

Edit: down voting this does not change the facts of life.

Courts have more power than crypto enthusiasts/crypto promoters/pump and dump peddlers/etc. That power is enforced by Guys With Guns.

This reminds me of the frequent argument that "bitcoin's value is just as unfounded as the us dollar's." Sure, as long as you don't consider the US dollar's value to at all be related to aircraft carriers and ICBMs. That said, I think there's room to argue that bitcoin or a future cryptocoin could have advantages which exceed the value of those factors.

The value of a currency as either a store of value or as a medium of exchange is directly proportionate to ability of the entity that uses the such currency to beat whoever does not like this currency into pulp on a global scale (aircraft carriers, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, US Marines, etc) or police, judiciary, prosecutors on a local, state and federal level in case Punk Joe decides to rob aunt Suzi on her way from a bingo hall.

That's why GBP was very valuable when Britain was the big dog on a block, US dollar is highly valued now and currency of Venezuela is in a toilet.

Decentralized nature of the crypto-currency is something that will destroy its value as there would be no one to beat the living shit out of the Punk Joe on a behalf of Aunt Suzi or US Navy showing up next door.

Where I do think we would see block chain applied is international settlements between central banks. Imagine, if you will, that all money flows between all countries in the aggregate would be visible and validatable by all central banks. Considering that we are rapidly approaching the end of the anonymity of inter-country banking it seems that those book-to-book transactions would gain a lot of additional legitimacy if Egypt CB could verify that the money moved from Sweden did not come from Israel CB if Egypt's position is not to accept Israeli' money.

Bitcoin anonymity isn't usually all it's cracked up to be.

And in any case, most of the people involved aren't anonymous, in practice.

If actual money is involved, then not every part of your investment is anonymous. If actual money is NOT involved, then the SEC shouldn't need to worry about it, right?

What are you going to do when you cash out? Declaring tens of thousands of dollars of income as capital gains is going to be suspicious (because capital gains has much lower tax rate than regular income), so you better make sure you have all the documentation to prove to the IRS auditors that you're not trying to evade taxes.

"What powers does SEC have here if the people behind the ICO are anonymous and you invest anonymously?"

An asset is an asset.

If you buy and sell something with cash - well - you have to tell the taxman, and possibly the SEC if you're doing something they should know about.