> This is why they are being careful to say only Bitcoin isn't a security now. That speech in 2018, centerpiece of the lawsuit, said Ethereum also was not a security. If that speech is found a legally binding statement, it's really hard to find anything smart-contract-powered from Ethereum to XRP as a security.

That seems like a leap. Paper is a commodity, but a stock certificate is (or represents, whatever) a security. A contract may be written on paper, but create a security. A database isn't a security but an entry in the right database, in the right place, might be. It seems to me all it would do is keep smart contracts from being securities simply because they use Ethereum—if they are, or create, securities, I see no reason why those would be any harder to regulate than any others.

> unless Congress were to pass a law to grant more authority, the SEC would have almost no ability to regulate cryptocurrency as they would have no ability to define cryptocurrency as a form of "security"

This is a fringe theory no administrative lawyer backs. Neither, based on crypto’s lobbying of the Congress, do those with influence in crypto.

Ripple’s case is narrow. This legal theory sounds like it’s being pitched by someone making a “times are about to change” pitch.