Assuming the accuracy of the SEC's Order, the issuer's legal position and disclosure seem poorly conceived. Apparently, the issuer asserted that the tokens were not "securities," obviously raising the question as to why the issuer was attempting to register them as securities. The SEC is fulfilling its statutory mission when it stands in the way of obvious violations of the securities laws. Going after such obvious violations, however, does not excuse the SEC from issuing guidance as to more…

An invitation for market participants to meet with SEC Commissioners is not meaningful unless the SEC affirmatively gives an indication that a benefit can come from such a meeting. To date, a majority of the SEC Commissioners have failed to acknowledge that may have some investment value. Commissioners should respond to that proposal as a sign to market participants that a meeting with them might be worthwhile.

The SEC ought also to facilitate the ability of regulated entities to provide documents electronically to their customers.

Crypto-enthusiasts should be mindful that not even Commissioner Peirce, who might generally be regarded as the most supportive of the current financial regulators to crypto markets, believes that (i) digital assets require their own special regulator or (ii) all stablecoins are outside of the securities laws. Proponents of a better and clearer regulatory approach to digital assets need to be realistic and to be respectful of genuine policy interests, including taxation, financial stability,…