That's an interesting take, and one that certainly needs thinking about. On the one hand, all crypto-currencies could potentially fall under some fairly stringent regulatory attention, should the authorities decide to turn their attentions to any of them.

And yet, there are many - utility tokens for one - that serve primarily as a useful mechanism within a game or project, rather than a traditional security.

For example, there have been many massive multiplayer games over the years that use in-game purchases or in-game items that can be bought or traded, which did not, before the age of cryptocurrency, fall under such legal scrutiny. But these days such games employ in-game assets as crypto-tokens (as in Splinterlands), which suddenly puts your project into the category of a financial institution.

I think my point is that governments are still lagging behind in many ways. They hear the word "crypto" in regards to a project and lump it in with securities and finance, when the tokenisation of the web will be far more nuanced than that.

It's just a shame that such legal ambiguity might either put some developers off, or place others developers into potential legal strife.