I'm actually impressed with how well the SEC has been able to differentiate between legitimate cryptocurrencies and scam projects.
The SEC objects that this ICO has an investment component. That is, that it is sold to people hoping to make money from it.
Basically they are enforcing that if there is an investment component, the coin is a security and needs to comply with security offering law.
There are still open questions about whether and how that or other approaches will work.
...But for a long time now, I and a lot of other people have thought that the basic strategy of a lot of ICO issuers -- issue tokens for money, call them "utility tokens," hype their speculative benefits, and watch the money roll in -- was obviously illegal, and the SEC didn't seem to be paying attention. Now we know it is.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/with-markets-going-crypto-...
Charles Ponzi didn't coerce anyone.
419 scammers depend on your voluntary stupidity.
Telemarketers don't hold a gun to your head.
Allowing free people to enter into whatever voluntary transactions they would like is basically the definition of anarchism. It's surprising to see people advocating for anarchism on HN this often, especially in obscured fashions like this rather than explicitly. Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally seen as a desirable end goal.
[Edited for clarity.]
I think "voluntary" should mean that both parties know what this transaction would realistically mean for both of them and the actual risks involved. When you are being scammed (by many of the ICOs (not all of them)) - that does not sound like a voluntary transaction to me.
