Okay, getting to the end there are more specific accusations but even these accusations are clouded in obscurity and you can certainly pick apart claims in certain paragraphs which are contradicted by statements of facts given in other paragraphs.

Yes, this is civil suit and given the weakness of the complaint will most likely stay that way.

I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a class action lawsuit in which those allegedly defrauded are paid out 5 to 10 cents on the dollar for what they were defrauded for.

Another key point to make is the actual "charges" being alleged all seem to hinge on "hashlets" being a security. That is the underlying basis for the three compliants, that they were sold under the pretense of fraud, that they were bought under the pretense of fraud and that the said exchanges were done without registering them as a security.

I imagine defense will certainly argue that these were not securities. In order for "hashlets" to fall under the definition the scope of what consists as a security would need to be widened to an almost incomprehensible scope. I say that because such a broad scope would encompass such a wide array of online services, not just mining, but services such as cloud computing offered by Amazon and Microsoft which in turn begins the path down the slippery slop of cloud storage being a security.

If defense counsel has any wits about them at all they will file to dismiss. Even if plaintiffs were to refine the complaint and limit the cloud computing services to those involving the mining of an online currency then such same definition must apply to sites such as Nice Hash which in a similar manner offer could mining services to buyers.

You would certainly have a better chance of charging GHASH.IO with selling an unregistered security given the direct tie to an exchange but given either example both I think are a far stretch to consider a "security".

Unless the courts are willing to broaden the definition of a security to include cloud computing services such  as Microsoft Azure, Amazon's EC2, GigaHash and NiceHash the SEC might have problems bringing this case before a Jury. That is if the defense counsel has any wits and the defense doesn't fold into the aforementioned class action settlement.

Claims by that the "hashlets" were marketed as 'never being obsolete', etc... certainly muddies the waters. But as I have previously done this certainly could be argued. Counter examples can easily be given in analogies for example referencing  the marketing tactics of nearly any given Web Development shop, SEO company or a Pod Casting Company.