It looks like you created a new account specifically to respond to my post questioning the legality of the Nxt IPO. I think I struck a nerve somehow.
If any of the founders sold shares to US residents, then I believe SEC registration would have been required. How is this different than Satoshi Dice? But SEC registration most certainly did not happen (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I believe the SEC would have a case against any of the 47 initial founders should any of them financially profit by selling their stake to US residents.
EDIT: This is interesting. Perhaps the Eric Voorhees / Satoshi Dice precedent just killed the IPO model for launching cryptocurrencies.
It's one of the reasons I dropped the IPO model for MC2. I kind of wonder if it has ramifications for spinoffs too, because with a spinoff of Bitcoin you could buy bitcoins now and get coins for them later.
Someone at the company I work for is talking to some corporate lawyers right now about the legality of these IPOs in general.
Note that a lot of banking for other IPOs seems to be done offshore, too (not naming names), and that they're going so far as to avoid the term "IPO" lately.
I think developers have to start thinking about the Voorhees-issue if they are receiving money (bitcoins, USD, etc) in exchange for some sort of virtual token. In my mind, this applies to any "pre-mined" coin when it is clear that the pre-mine was effectively "closed." So this would apply to "insta-mines" too.
In reality this won't matter for 99% of altcoins because serious money won't be made. But in the case where a pre/insta-mined coin does take off, then I could see the founders getting the Voorhees treatment (or worse).
Eventually I think the SEC will lose control here, but until then it is important to understand exactly what the laws are. It's a shame really, because this probably affects the ability of bitcoin start-up companies to fund-raise via colored coins