That is your defense   (joke, because you and I both know Iota is too small a fish for the SEC to fry any way, not much less the issue of layers of legal hurdles in between the SEC and Iota/you ... thus it is silly to allege any serious chance of action being taken against you personally[1])

Seriously you are undoubtedly correct in the overall scope of this, although one could argue that he is likely thought by the public investors to be on the level of a board member in terms of how he was making public statements about how much ETH they were selling and this would finance them for 4.5 years. I think he may crossed the line with that statement. But good lawyers can work around that mistake.

[1] my only point to you is really that I wouldn't play legal jurisdiction game theory unless I had no other good options. I personally wouldn't do it for ethical reasons of trying to respect other cultures and their legal systems. If I thought it was absolutely necessary (in some Libertarian idealism) to achieve some greater good for society, I could perhaps justify it. And that is why I never intended to get into a war with you, but your iotatoken partner is a hot-head who couldn't resist making a war in this thread. And it spread. I care a little bit about not siphoning off all the crypto gamblers' funds to insiders of altcoins which are going no where, but I thought you had enough interesting technology in Iota to justify earning $100,000 or so on it. I thought you'd be satisfied with the $500,000, but I guess I must realize you only get what maybe 12.5% of that? Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave.