However it is also a fact that most (but not all) of the folks behind the myriad of altcoins DO NOT think that they have ANY fiduciary responsibilities and as such act only in their self-interest (can you say shitcoin pump-n-dump schemes?). It is because of those crypto coin developers acting irresponsibly and all too often, fraudulently, that she has concerns which may need to be addressed through legislation.
But what it would mean in reality? That developers must comply with regulations before releasing open-source software? I don't see how this can be enforced, especially since crypto is a global phenomenon that ignores borders. Best they can do is to tell exchanges which coins to list, but we're already in era of decentralized exchanges, so even that won't prevent people from investng in scamcoins.
To me it is not so much the actual software used be it Core or some bastardized mutation of it tweaked for an altcoin -- it is
what coin/token/whatnot the software is applied to and
who in turn are the operators of the BUSINESS behind said coins. What is the business model? What is the point of the coin?
BTC and a few alts such as Litecoin and ETH were lucky enough to skate under those regulatory questions long enough to get the wide acceptance and for the most part at least quasi-legal status they currently enjoy. The disgusting afterbirth of ICO's/tokens/etc - and the scammy nature of the vast majority of them - has now brought the need for regulation. They are securities and as such now are treated as such.