Ponzi? No. Unregulated gambling? Of course.
Sign me up!
For example, a project called Status (http://status.im/) recently held an ICO in which people were tripping over themselves to buy Status's coins. It actually backed up the Ethereum network for several hours with pending transactions and they raised over $100 million USD worth of Ethereum (at the time). See if you can find on their website a description of what the coins are actually used for. I can't!
Something about permanent storage and security (regarding Ethereum usage).
What if it turns out te SEC issues a statement saying that all these ICOs were illegal because they were selling unregistered securities?
Does ex post facto apply here?
Can any lawyers chime in for those of us who are thinking about ICOs?
OTOH, if it's just an existing statutory definition that the SEC looks at and says that this new thing fits into it, then there is no change in definition. Prosecutions might proceed based on the exosting definition based on acts before the SEC applied that definition to the acts in question, though it would be a question for the court whether the existing definition was being applied correctly.
I am not going to express an opinion, at this time, on whether any securities laws apply to ICOs in either way (either clear inclusion one existing statutory definitions or areas that are, under statute, open to regulatory action.)