Regarding the number of coins: just go for the bigger ones, it's not exactly new strategy (that's why you primarily go for drug lords instead of low-level resellers).
Regarding the prosecution: the US has extradition agreements with a lot of countries, so if ICO resulted in American citizens either buying coins (i.e. securities) or offering them, than it's a fair game for the SEC and (possibly) some real jail time in US prison. It's also pretty easy to freeze assets as soon as they are converted to fiat, and they will be, because you can't buy a Ferrari with BTC.
Even if it's a "logical progression", you got it backwards. We had an unregulated securities marked before 1933; it went really bad for various reasons. It turns out that peddling "securities" on the basis of rosy promises (or blog posts in the case of ICOs) is bad and some regulation forcing companies to open up is good.
Yes. By going after their assets. What happens when you can neither identify nor seize their assets? You can't even identify the alleged perpetrators.
> Regarding the prosecution: the US has extradition agreements with a lot of countries
And if you don't even know the names of the people who own a crypto, how much they own, let alone what country they live in? These things are stateless. There is no coordination between countries because there's no way to even identify where the coordination would occur.
> It's also pretty easy to freeze assets as soon as they are converted to fiat
And if you can transfer from any crypto to any crypto any time you like? That facility already exists with shapeshift, and when atomic swaps become available, that genie is never going to get put back in a bottle. You mean freeze ALL cryptos? How do you think you could even attempt that, let alone achieve it. You think that just because it's the US government they can make something like this 'just happen'? It's like stating "US Dollars are to no more be used for purchasing drugs!". Great statement. A little bit lacking in the enforcement category.
> and some regulation forcing companies to open up is good.
These aren't companies. You can't force them to do anything.
> Even if it's a "logical progression", you got it backwards.
I don't think you've actually thought this through. Every one of your suggestions is a non-answer that is trivial to circumvent even if it was possible to build something to circumvent in the first place. Your opinion seems be born out of a belief that just because it is the US government they can do anything. But there isn't even a suggestion as to how any of this 'control' could be asserted, let alone achieved.
Regarding the prosecution: the US has extradition agreements with a lot of countries, so if ICO resulted in American citizens either buying coins (i.e. securities) or offering them, than it's a fair game for the SEC and (possibly) some real jail time in US prison. It's also pretty easy to freeze assets as soon as they are converted to fiat, and they will be, because you can't buy a Ferrari with BTC.
Even if it's a "logical progression", you got it backwards. We had an unregulated securities marked before 1933; it went really bad for various reasons. It turns out that peddling "securities" on the basis of rosy promises (or blog posts in the case of ICOs) is bad and some regulation forcing companies to open up is good.