SEC shows support for ICOs that are not obviously securities

I might be reading this wrong, but nothing in the article says that the SEC supports ICOs that are not obviously securities. Instead, the more reasonable conclusion is that the SEC will go after the most flagrant violators first, which isn't the same thing as the first statement.

It's not terribly surprising either. Regulatory agencies have limited resources, so they must necessarily focus their efforts on actors that cause the most damage or openly violate the rules. But it would be a stretch to say they show support for all the other ICOs they don't go after.

If this isn’t clickbait then I don’t know what is. There is no new information here, and I don’t see anywhere where it says that the SEC supports ICOs.

I do not know the author, but this is kind of an embarrassment to be considered journalism.

A much better read would be Fred Wilson’s thoughts on the matter:

http://avc.com/2017/09/the-china-ico-ban/

A better headline might be "SEC has not ruled on ICOs that are not obviously securities but there is reason to suspect they might not rule favorably"

Why would anyone put money into your ICO if it isn't a security and doesn't give you some kind of "advantage"? Like, either your token will raise in value or your token gives the holder some special ability. Lacking either of those, why would anyone pay ETH for it?

the article doesn't say that

This article is terrible, full of opinion and hearsay. Why on earth did it shoot up to #2? I get that if you're invested in all these awful coins you want others to buy in too, because otherwise your coins are worthless, but still.