[workingpatrick]

I'd argue that for the interaction to be truly consensual, both parties must be fully informed about the risks and rewards of the interaction that they are choosing to participate in. My reading of the SEC press release leads me to believe that the primary reason for requiring filing with the SEC for a sale of this nature is to ensure that all relevant information is available for the parties involved, thus allowing the interaction to be truly consensual.

[CryptoPunk]

You don't prohibit an entire class of interactions, and then approve them on a case-by-case basis when the centralized authority deems that the interaction is consensual.

Approval-encumbered interaction is not consistent with how free society works, where people are presumed innocent, and not burdened with restrictions, until proven guilty.

Speech used to be like that. You had to get approval from the state, before being allowed to publish. This was to prevent things like libel. It was called Prior Restraint. Eventually courts ruled it violated the Freedom of Speech, and we are all vastly better for that ruling.

In practice it's also not flexible enough for innovation. It regiments only one acceptable way to establish an informed and consensual interaction, which precludes innovative new ways opened up by technology.