There are plenty of USA exemptions for the issuing size of the companies that have attempted to raise capital in cryptocurrencies. Regulation D has plenty of them.
Yes, the general libertarian-anarchocapitalist air of "government bad, regulation bad" has sliced your portfolios by 60% in the past two months, when instead of working with regulations, issuers and exchanges have used more energy trying to avoid the US regulators.
But even with Regulation D, and even unfinalized regulations on crowdfunding ... the SEC can exempt any person (natural or artificial), any security, or any class of security from any section of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
I've held that nascent technologies like bitcoin require exemptions to avoid the impossible burdens of raising capital or exchanging value in compliance with securities laws. I think it would be more fruitful for Americans and other traders, issuers and people planning to run exchanges with americans, to put energy into courting the SEC, not necessarily for a broad exemption from certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but to make it clear to the SEC what the public interest is and how they can still protect consumers without burdening all bitcoin denominated securities issuers with impossible regulations.
see section 28 of the Securities Act of 1933
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdfsee section 36 of the Securities Act of 1934
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdfdespite the commissions incestuous ties with a protectionist financial system, the key parts of their exemptive powers come from realizing the public interest, and how it can continue its goal of "protecting consumers"