Let's look at your recent record as an expert in Securities laws ..
We are going around in circles here Flex. What is the purpose of you making this post? To show that I can sometimes be wrong in my predictions I am guessing?
I have already explained to you many times now, the SEC's job is to enforce the law (not make the law), And the SEC has taken action against, and successfully prosecuted hundreds of illegal "alt" issuers as well as those who facilitate the trading thereof. Will the SEC continue to pursue ETH as a security? It seems not. Did they have good reason to? Of course they did. The SEC is well funded, with some of the best securities lawyers in the world. They don't just bring cases for fun. When do bring a case, it is obviously with very good reason for doing so. And I can guarantee Gensler knows more about you than securities law (or even me for that matter). From an academic perspective, we had very good reason for our views. Not to mention Saylor also predicted ETH would not be approved as an ETF, among many other very smart people. I would suggest you to look more at the rationale of a person who makes a prediction when assessing their expertise, rather than the outcome per se. Not just in finance, but actually in any field.
Why did the SEC decide not pursue ETH? This is a much longer discussion, but if you do your research, or even if not, it should actually be blatantly obvious why so many alts are clearly securities - essentially they are simply business (at best), with shares issued to the public in those businesses, represented by "crypto tokens". Please go and read my prior posts for longer explanations, as I don't want to repeat myself more than is necessary, but in a nutshell, you can't take a security and just call it a "token" and then think its suddenly not a security. In securities language we say "we look at substance over form" to describe this principle.
Having said that, the securities-like qualities of ETH are in part why it is underperforming BTC (down 38% to BTC just this year alone) and why it will likely continue to do so. In the long run, the market figures these things out, regardless of any investor protections which are put in place.. So, if for example, every form of shitcoin was made "legal" we might see an initial flurry of interest, and followed by a seemingly endless supply of shitcoins issues and accompanying shitcoinery - it would not end well. But out of that mess, a very small number of such coins would eventually survive, with many "investors" having learned their lesson along the way, with of course BTC simply continuing to grow more and more dominant every time such a cycle completes, for obvious reasons.
If you prefer to watch videos rather then doing your own research, here is a good clip I urge you to watch
i=eNZbmcDngyj564wO
