[lern_too_spel]

> Going after scams was never the issue. Actual scammers were prosecuted

Anybody who tells you to buy crypto is either a scammer or somebody being scammed. There clearly aren't enough prosecutions.

> That is the same basic tradeoff the 'gatekeep crypto' faction is trying to impose here: sacrifice freedom for security

The freedom to be scammed has never been protected, nor should it be.

[ETH_start]

So now you want to classify any advocacy for crypto as an investment a scam and prohibit it. That would be a massive infringement on the First Amendment and basically a repudiation of any principle associated with a free society.

Is this kind of censorship law what you meant by a Democrat "regulating crypto"?

[lern_too_spel]

You completely misunderstand. If you advocate joining somebody else's ponzi scheme and aren't aware of it, you don't go to jail. If you do it knowingly, you could be prosecuted. If you run the ponzi scheme, you definitely will be prosecuted. Similarly, if you run infrastructure that circumvents sanctions, you definitely will be prosecuted. It's straightforward.

If you try to avoid prosecutions for those crimes on free speech grounds, the prosecutor will laugh at you. You might as well declare yourself a sovereign citizen.