I've not heard any reason why these ICOs are any different than any other security. Simply being "on a computer" never should have been enough for patents, and it most definitely isn't enough here.
It did not die, different people are now picking up the chain and making it a more valuable currency.
The point is not that these currencies are "on a computer", the point is that they represent a collective interest that lives beyond borders.
My point was that there are regularization factors in the market that exist without a centralized organization rubber stamping actions. Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that people, especially the poor and intelligent, must be protected from themselves.
My point is that there is no reason to not have the disclosure and reporting regulations in place. You really have not countered that. And claiming that there is a narrative about protecting people from themselves really doesn't work when we're talking about regulations designed to disclose the information that would allow them to make those decisions.
Feel free to buy lottery tickets or gamble, just don't let us catch you investing in a startup seed round.
People keep spouting that argument, and I'm utterly unconvinced of its relevance. Namely because you're arguing against the very things that would compel disclosure of the information required to make an informed decision. The other two things you mentioned have that information provided.
We wouldn't want the poor hurting themselves.
Coins represent a better approach, one not walled off to the general public. Coins can represent concepts or goals that live beyond a centralized organization providing documentation. Of course there is vested interest in regulation. Accredited investors love the walled gardens.