I meant conceptually. If the startup ecosystem embraces ICOs, then that type of thing can happen.
Right now we'd just have to settle for "If Oculus got acquired, the price probably would have gone up." But you could imagine starting a company that promises to incorporate tokens into the structure somehow: Perhaps the founder would say they'll only sell to acquirers that are willing to offer token holders $x, where $x is based on the price over the last month before being acquired. Then it'd be in the founder's best interest to sell as little of the token as possible to cover operations, since otherwise it reduces their chances of getting acquired -- just like normal investment.
Also it incentivizes founders to make the company do well: if they can tap into funding when needed (because they have premined coins they can sell), they're less beholden to the valley. That means a smart 18 year old can single-handedly launch and fund a company; no permission needed from some cabal of investors.
Moot was 15 when he launched 4chan. If you believed in its future, you could've (a) supported it by buying their token, and (b) possibly made some return on that belief.
Obviously, all of the normal caveats apply: most investments don't work out. But everyone knows that.
If I want to put $2k into a company, why is the government stepping in to stop me? I can go waste $2k at the casino or squander it however I want. It's my money.
Bitcoin itself can be thought of as an ICO. When people buy Bitcoin, we're buying into Satoshi's vision for the future. It's not merely because it's useful. So why is that legal, but ICOs aren't?
The overall point is that this is a powerful model, and it could become even more powerful. The rest of the world is embracing it, so the US could find themselves left out by getting too draconian.