like the gnu/linux/systemd/gnome/blink argument, this is a great example of why calling linkedlogs/dcash/proofofwork/byzantineFT/cryptokeysasidentity "crypto" kind of muddles the conversation.

In JPMorgan's case, using linkedlogs/dcash/cryptokeysasidentity might end up working out really well. They can distribute the tech to other banks, and the killer feature, besides being distributed ends up being cryptokeysasidentity, from a security standpoint. In my book, what they are doing is still "crypto" but it isnt the genius innovation the whole sum of all bitcoin was. (You might argue that its the proof of work that makes something a crypto, and thats fine.) What made bitcoin different was APPLYING a bunch of academic knowledge to a useful to solve problem. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3136559

If you look up the definition of TECHNOLOGY, its "the application of knowledge." Bitcoin is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a technology, not because its digital, electronic, and computery, but because its taking a ton of knowledge from academia and APPLYING it. This new coin is more a reapplication of technology, than any sort of creation.

I don't think it's the work "crypto" that helps people skirt regulations. It's the anonymous, permisionless consensus coordination that does. JP Morgan's coin won't have that property, they're just signing off on transactions themselves.

Surely if it did, regulators would move quickly to close that gap?

i was curious about this as well

No. Why would it?

I know nothing about finance law, but I know that governments typically have a "blind spot" for new technologies.

Sometimes this can be a good thing, and I think it's what kind of led to the internet being such an interesting place with things like BitTorrent, but often businesses will see it as a quick loophole.

I know nothing about the law for e.g. violent crime, but if you find a new murder weapon, the law would certainly not have a "blind spot" for your new technology.

The law isn't a computer program, it is a human process.