That 70 year old law is based on financial models that have been settled for far longer though. I hate to use the overhawked term 'disruption' but ICO's appear to be causing major issues amongst the status quo.
The only innovation that tokens bring to securities is reducing the cost of recording who owns what shares. Which is certainly important, in fact one of the most important innovations since the 1400s, but the idea that this new feature would have any impact whatsoever on the interpretation of our existing securities laws is insane.
> which is what humans like Jamie Dimon and some investors do not like
There are plenty of people on this thread (myself included) who believe regulators are overdue in cracking down on this space. No need to invoke a bogeyman.
> That 70 year old law is based on financial models that have been settled for far longer though
No, it's based on the language of a statute that's about a decade older.
Now, the statute may be based on older financial models, but that doesn't control the case law, and disrupting the financial model doesn't, in and of itself, amend the statute underlying the case law.
