I really dislike the ongoing usage of the word "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency", i.e. "cryptographical currency". I can never tell if something's happening to ICOs or cryptography.

> 50% of participants in the token sale purchased less than $1000 of Kin, which seems more consistent with a consumptive use vs. investment purpose argument.

So 50% purchased more than $1000. To do what, buy stickers and themes?

I'd wager than even the "under $1000" crowd will be 90% cryptocurrency investors holding it as part of a "balanced" portfolio.

The proposed Token Taxonomy Act is relevant. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2144...

I think its really necessary to differentiate between ICOs and cryptocurrency in general.

IANAL, but:

The interesting thing about securities is that although we think of a security as a "thing" (like Kin) its actually a transaction - as in a "securities transaction". Meaning with two transactions involving Kin, one transaction could be a securities transaction, and the other could not.

This is more obvious when you think of the original Howey test. Selling an orange grove is not a securities transaction, but selling an orange grove where you also promise to cultivate the asset for the profit of the investor is.

Selling $5 of Kin in to a Kik user doesn't sound like a securities transaction, but selling $5 Million to a VC fund does (though probably one exempt from registration).

how does the law work when you did something before it was illegal? or why it's not the case here?

legal precedence was poorly thought out