There are two kinds of people in this world: those who understand the law is a means to an end and t

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who understand the law is a means to an end and those who confuse the law with reality.

Here's a good example: there's a class of people who criticize initial coin offerings because the tokens they create are "obviously" a security under U.S. securities law. To people of the former persuasion, this fact alone is all that matters. To those of the latter persuasion, the reply is, "So what?"

The law is fine and good, but the point of the law needs to be that it constructs a way of coordinating the world that's for the best. It may be true that under the traditional way of viewing securities, these tokens definitely are. But is that for the best? And does it make sense to challenge that notion? Whether in the courts or legislatively?

Or just by sheer defiance?

I'm not weighing in. I'm just commenting that there's a certain class of commenter who seems to say that because these tokens do meet that definition, then these projects are ill conceived on a prima facie level. And that bugs me.

Someday I will follow up on this point and kvetch a bit about the way in which people conflate legal identities with organizations. They aren't even kind of the same thing, and the only time it's helpful to think of them that way is when people are doing taxes (and really, that's all the state cares about too).

Long story short: the law is a coordination mechanism, it's not reality.