There’s an assumption being made that the SEC has a vastly different way of looking at investor protection than securities regulators in other jusrisdicions. I’m sure there will be some regulatory arbitrage going on, but if an ICO is a security it doesn’t make it automatically illegal, it just means they have to follow rules established that are mostly there to legally bind the organization to disclose information to investors and follow certain governance standards.
Some jurisdictions also don’t require normal stock offerings to follow rules as strict as the SEC does. It doesn’t stop the US from having many of the largest stock markets in the world, and a very high level of public participation in equity investing.
It wouldn't matter if they're located outside the US. The SEC has jurisdiction over all securities that are sold to US persons, and most countries where you'd want to be located have similar laws.
> Thats why it is so important that crypto startups leave the usa to be outside the jurisdiction of the sec.
So they can all run their scams in countries that don't care? I mean, doesn't this just show that crypto startups are all about providing services to entities that, for various reasons, do not / cannot participate in the aboveground economy?
Like, what reputable, real company would have any problem existing inside the USA's jurisdiction? You could argue drug trade, which is supposedly a "victimless crime" (note: it isn't... depending on the drug, even "non-violent" drug use can fuck over a lot of people outside just the person who choses to take said drug (eg: meth, herion, oxy, etc...)). Anything else though, it is almost certainly a scammer scamming people. Why should above ground society tolerate people wanting to run ponzi schemes, people trying to cash out crypto-ransomware revenue, or people who want to deal in murder-for-hire?
