> Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results.

Yes, they do. Civil courts are full of almost nothing besides "but you said" games. You're just describing the status quo of how law works.

No; “fraud” is illegal. They don’t have to specifically list each of the different possible techniques somewhere.

Same with securities. The Howey test exists. The courts and Congress occasionally find a tweak that needs making, but they aren’t likely to be impressed by shenanigans like “oh it isn’t a shared enterprise because of this cute quirky thing”.

So according to you, following the SEC's lead: Selling Bitcoin is legal, selling Solana is illegal, and selling ETH (Ethereum) is in a quasi-state of legal and illegal. Nobody knows exactly why any of this is the case, and that's totally fine with you because you don't want to dive into any of these "cute quirky things".

They've explained their reasoning in various spots. For example:

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-th...

> Elsewhere in the speech, Hinman explained: "If the network on which [a] token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract."

"Sufficiently...may..." but even the SEC themselves will not tell you whether Ethereum qualifies or not. That is not rule of law.

Sure it is. The SEC alleges a violation of the law. The courts decide if they are right at trial.

Eth is fairly uniquely complicated by the fact that it probably went from security to commodity before they could get smacked for the security period.