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.<p>So 50% purchased <i>more</i> than $1000. To do what, buy stickers and themes?<p>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. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2144/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2144...</a><p>I think its really necessary to differentiate between ICOs and cryptocurrency in general.
IANAL, but:<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).