The problem is that you can't know what isn't good until you see evidence of bad coming out - then you rule that it shouldn't be allowed.

This is how a lot of safety regulation comes about - from a disaster or a problem that previously nobody knew or understood.

The SEC is likely operating under this sort of outlook.

That was a reasonable argument to make in 2013 or 2017. But after Gensler's administration alone issuing more than 1,500 actions, the SEC should be able to codify their interpretations and publish guidance for startups to follow.

It's crazy that a decade after the white paper was published, the SEC still won't say if Ethereum is a security or not. Gensler was literally asked this in front of congress and refused to answer:

https://twitter.com/MatthewHyland_/status/164833448714565632...

This is a project that's 10 years old, has had tends of thousands of tokens and other projects built on it, and has a $250B market. There's no excuse for the SEC to not have a position on it.

The SEC has no power to decide that crypto shouldn't be allowed. That would require legislation from congress. Legislation that is not forthcoming. The SEC is currently doing an end run around this fact by saying that it is a security (which is explicitly legal) but that it can't be registered (which effectively means nobody can sell it). It is a naked power grab by an unelected bureaucracy.

But the argument that gets made most often on the flip side is that "the law is perfectly clear, it's not the SEC's job to indicate what's illegal", which stands in contradiction with what you're saying (which I agree with).

The fact is, there's lack of clarity abound; the SEC is obviously lacking clarity and feeling their way around, yet they take the stance I mentioned, that the law is already clear, and they don't need to engage with the community and other regulatory bodies to create clarity.