That may be overly reductive. My views on several rules changed as a result of observing the ICO phenomenon.
For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! On the other hand, I think Regulation D could be massively simplified--from a required paperwork perspective--to lower the cost of selling unregistered securities.
I agree that we should probably have regulations in place to protect people from scams, but accredited investors are just people with > $1M or > $200k in income over the past 2 years. Basically a way to filter for 'wealthy' people that can afford to lose the money.
The part I didn't appreciate is it's also a filter for people who can hire a lawyer/adviser to conduct basic diligence. Raising $1 million in $10,000 cheques guarantees virtually zero oversight. That, much more than anything legitimate, has been what ICOs have enabled.
This is one area I keep going back and forth on in my head. On one hand, obviously scams are bad, and the fact that people are throwing their life savings into some of these companies is awful.
That said, I am not sure it should be up to Governments to decide who can and can’t invest in early stage startups and how people should be allowed to spend their money. Much of the reason that crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, ICOs) has become popular is because of the lower barrier to entry for contributing to projects/startups. There are a number of companies I would love to invest in, but can’t because I am not a millionaire. I do not really find that fair.
Creating an open market around funding will teach people a lot of hard lessons about money. VCs know that 90% of startups are going to fail. I don’t think it is that crazy to believe that regular people can learn that as well. All it takes is one really bad investment to learn the lesson.
Remember we live in a country where a cafe has to put the following disclaimer on Hot coffee paper cups "Caution: The contents of this cup could be hot!!"
I think the cup example may actually be more to prevent restaurants/cafes from lawsuits vs. to actually protect their customers from burns. I suppose it could be a combination of the two though.