The ability to fund development of important network infrastructure with a related digital asset is too useful to remain in indefinite legal limbo!
[1] https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersnoactionhtm.html
Then it's a no-brainer to test whether it's possible to make a non-security token that still retains some of the benefits of crypto tokens.
I am working on a crypto token designed to avoid the bad incentives and legal issues with current ICOs that might make a good test case:
* Token provides immediate practical benefit (collaboration on important data using distributed storage, narrowing focus from Sia, Storj, Filecoin, etc) from day one
* Token sold in small tranches over an extremely long time period, ideally at stable price
* No intermediate ERC20 or similar token pre-sale
* Pre-mined tokens (eventually sold) make up small fraction of total supply
For the Howey Test, I think it's most reasonable to aim for either no expectation of profit or no common enterprise.
If anyone is interested in helping test this, contact me!
Better yet, issue guidance for how ICOs could be conducted in compliance with Regulation D [1] (or A). ICOs have potential. But right now they're replaying on fast forward the boom-and-bust scamapalooza of the pre-1930s. More disclosure, more discretion and an iota of personal responsibility will help, not hinder.
But, reaching for that compliance essentially negates one of the key benefits of ICOs, namely that you've specifically not been required to comply with SEC regulations. That's kind of the open secret with some of these crypto offerings.
Have a look at the (non-crypto related) Reg A+ stuff, especially Title IV. It was supposed to open the flood-gates on crowdfunding, mini-IPOs, etc. But, the requirements are so demanding that the bar is still extremely high for any sort of substantial offering, and there has thus been relatively little activity that leverages that reg.
Take the same style of regulation and apply it to crypto (ICOs, etc.) and watch activity plummet there.