Below I also integrate a concise (layman’s) summary of securities regulation (in the USA) with links to prior in depth analysis, and allude to how we plan for the project I’m working on to not issue securities (i.e. to issue “pure/true cryptocurrencies” as SEC Chairman refers to).

At ~28min mark in the video, SEC Chairman Clayton makes the emphatic point that if ICOs are acting as a security, then it’s a security. That has been my point all along and even in my extended analysis of the SAFT and utility tokens.

That’s why I’ve design the launch of our decentralized ledger project (tentatively named CRED, or at least the token name CRED unless we think of better name before launch) such that we’re not issuing tokens which are securities. I devised a clever way to insure that those who obtain securities can’t legally expect them to be investments, and thus force them to be utility tokens. My solution is quite clever and isn’t a variant of the SAFT. So thus while these other projects which were issued as ICOs will likely be destroyed (forced to delist from all centralized exchanges and the principals under cease-and-desist attack by the authorities), we expect our project to be unaffected. Sorry I will not provide at additional details about our plans at this time. Everyone must wait until we actually launch.

Just before the 31min mark, Clayton makes a very stern warning to professional advisers (attorneys!) and other professionals such as broker dealers, accountants (several mentioned at 135min) that they’re going to punish those who are semantic games. Even promoters are targeted at 147min. At 205 - 206min, Clayton emphatically indicates he’s going after these professionals! This is precisely what I’ve been warning! So Daniel Larimer better pack his bags for prison (and that includes the former Treasury official who served as their attorney for the sneaky premine of STEEM that obfuscated that it’s really a security and of course the EOS offering is clearly an obfuscation of a security). Disclaimer: this is only my opinion, IANAL. He later reiterates a statement he had been previously quoted as making, which is that every ICO he has looked at, is a security!

At the 31min mark, he admits that they don’t have regulatory authority over tokens which are not securities. And he implies that coordination of regulation against tokens which are not securities is going to be complicated.

At 33 min mark, CFTC Chairman Giancarlo points out what all of us know which is that Bitcoin has been spreading virally on everyone’s lips in the entire world. Billions of people now have heard of it. He argues for enabling decentralized ledger technology to flourish while cracking down very hard on fraudsters who manipulate the enthusiasm of the general public for a new technology to exploit the general public as greater fools.

At 39min mark, there is discussion about the lack of regulatory jurisdiction and coordination within the USA just for regulating the centralized exchanges. Before that the CFTC Chairman had mentioned they couldn’t even regulate the derivatives until the recent futures markets were created, which now allow them to go after those who might manipulated exchanges which feed data into those futures markets. So you can imagine the EU and other nations may even be further behind on regulatory capability and coherence. Discussed further with great emphasis 135min.

Hopefully now you can see another reason why I posit the Zionists created Bitcoin to force the nation-states towards a NWO global authority of coordination!

At before and after 48min, SEC Chairman admits they don’t have sufficient resources.

At 49min we hear questions from Senator Shelby¹, and both chairmen explain there is coordination with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin.

Before and aft of the 104min mark, Clayton defines a security in simple terms and notes the exchange of value for an expectation-of-profit relying on efforts of the issuer and the ability to trade what was issued to someone else in exchange (and by implication specifically in exchange for another fungible unit-of-exchange or store-of-value, not an exchange for non-fungible goods-and-services which would thus make it a unit-of-exchange or utility token and not a security). Those who are insightful should be able to deduce the solution we will employ for our project to avoid tokens being classified by securities per that definition. Remove the centralized issuer whom the expectations of effort apply, the exchange of value, and/or the expectation-of-profit via (expectation of) fungible exchange, then IMO it’s no longer a security (but disclaimer IANAL). Note that mining (or the equivalent on Steem of writing blogs which is a value created via effort) is an exchange of value. But in Bitcoin’s case, there’s no centralized issuer which the investor is basing his expectation-of-profit. Note from just before 134min forward, Clayton clarifies that profit returned in any form (whether it be server time or any good or service) would still qualify for the expectation-of-profit. But again note my emphasis on expectation. ;-) Chairman Clayton emphasizes this retail investors expectation of secondary markets at 207min. If the purchasers of a token have no expectation-of-profit, then there’s no security. There’s also a risk test variant of the expectation-of-profit test that some States of the USA use, which basically requires the investor have capital at risk due to the efforts of the others who received the capital.

From 114 min forward, they get into the international jurisdictional arbitrage (subversion) of nation-state regulation. During 117th min, CFTC Chairman Giancarlo mentions specific interactions they’ve had with their counterparts in other nations. Yet they both seem to imply that they’re a long way from achieving a comprehensive coordinated G20 regulatory framework. Interestingly he says that he thinks the recent crash in the BTC price reflects the awareness of investors the regulators are stepping up their enforcement! So if the BTC price to $100k within 2018 prediction (see my recent reply to @rajsallin) is correct, then the regulators are going to be under even more pressure to radically increase enforcement as it will be seen that their efforts have been inadequate to constrain a Tulip Mania. In fact at the 132min mark, SEC Chairman Clayton mentions a continued rise as reason to heighten their urgency. At 133min, Gianclaro mentions coordination at “IOSCR”— international organization of securities regulators.

At 116min, CFTC Chairman concurs (and per his prior statements on this issue) with Clayton that price manipulation on the exchanges is major problem. They’re implicitly referring to Tether which has allegedly issued some $2 billion of unbacked tokens and controls about 15% of the volume on exchanges. So expect actions against Tether! Also against those involved with ICOs who manipulate the price on exchange facilitating by for example buying the ICO from themselves or otherwise issuing a large share of the token supply to themselves.

Awesome question from Senator Kennedy at 124min about what’s the point of requiring disclosure when investors don’t read it any way. By implication, what is the point of regulating ICOs, but the point of regulating ICOs isn’t just disclosure rather it’s preventing issuers from making hype claims which aren’t material facts! Unfortunately neither Chairman Gianclaro or Clayton make this point (EDIT: Gianclaro addresses his omission about false disclosure at 132:50 and Clayton from 154min in context of Kodak et al hyping their association with blockchain). An example of such a hype claim not backed by material facts is Verify.as project claiming and implying some significant market for their project and then implying a token is needed, when in fact neither are true material facts.

From 135min, the enormous potential of decentralized ledgers is emphasized. They discuss volatility from 142min. The volatility is because there’s extreme expectation of future adoption (i.e. huge unprofessional/leveraged speculative demand) coupled with rampant manipulation, e.g. Tether, but the chairmen don’t make this point.at

Senator Menedez asks about Venezuela’s and Russia’s cryptocurrencies at 143min.

¹ _{Who is most likely my distant relative as all Shelby those with last name Shelby in the South of the USA probably have paternal lineage connection to Isaac Shelby, including myself (even though they moved it to a first name for my grandfather, father, and myself due to a maternal lineage).}