The SEC's logic is actually about how the items are marketed by the manufacturer. Baseball cards and wine aren't marketed by the manufacturer as items to buy as an investment.
and many crypto teams are meticulous about not doing that too
its why their discords say “no price discussion”, amongst many other communication nuances and project structuring to avoid securities issues. dont confuse celebrities and youtubers for the actual teams.
the only teams that have been sued by the SEC are ones that deviated in very predictable ways, there have been no surprises in the cases the SEC have brought, compared to the legal guidance that is given by law firms in the US
its just that the SEC then pretends as if it just hasnt gotten to other project issuers yet, and when not going after a specific project it just says “all cryptos are securities” because theyre going after an exchange, at the moment, and wont tell the exchange which ones
everything suggests the SEC’s logic is flimsy, or needs to apply even more broadly in a way that makes the SEC’s logic flimsy. The SEC is dragging this out because they understand the same thing, that all paths lead to their charter being modified even though they were just hoping that crypto went away.
This case is literally about celebrities being paid by the developers to market the product. Banning price discussions on Discord doesn’t absolve the developers of responsibility.
and the celebrities simply need to disclose what their compensation is, when the asset involved is already determined to be a security. I would actually like to see that practice extended to consumer products that aren't securities.
unfortunately here, the SEC is still relying on an ambiguous interpretation of securities, unilaterally deeming something a security and simultaneously charging people that promoted it, who are relying on assurances and a parallel set of behaviors that something is not a security.