I think reasonable people can disagree about the likelihood of upcoming enforcement actions. The only place where I feel entitled to get shouty about things is when people suggest that it's clear what the SEC is going to do next. I think it's easy to make a case that it's anything but clear.

I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable proclaiming with any certainty that Bitcoin or Ethereum or even ICOs were definitely going to fall afoul of the SEC. My understand is that the SEC is generally a lot smaller than "we" think it is and it's sort of a random function. Cryptocurrency is super important to HN, but the SEC's definition of "systemically important" is different than ours.

> My understand is that the SEC is generally a lot smaller than "we" think it is and it's sort of a random function. Cryptocurrency is super important to HN, but the SEC's definition of "systemically important" is different than ours.

Their mandate is to protect unsophisticated investors. That's why they weren't particularly interested in Madoff, and why the rules are so much laxer if you target "accredited investors."

Given that mandate, I think it's highly unlikely that they're going to go after romping, runaway successes. They'll focus on blatant pig-in-a-pokes.

I think they're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place - a lot of "retail investors" have bought into cryptocurrency at this point. Aggressive action by the SEC to crack down on digital currency would adversely affect the price of said currency, almost certainly harming "retail investors" in the process.

I'm using quotes because that's code for unsophisticated investors, the very group the SEC is supposed to protect.

> If the SEC was going to come down like a ton of bricks they would have done so already.

Could you elaborate? Why do you think that the SEC has made a final policy decision on crypto/ICO?