Unless they're using expensive KYC procedures, I doubt that many ICOs have done enough to exclude US investors that the law will excuse them from SEC regulations.
Because of FATCA and friends, essentially all financial institutions in the world now report to the US and follow its rules. If you are not a US taxpayer, and outside the US, they don't directly apply to you, but they have already affected the regulations that do apply to you.
Funnily enough, I drew the opposite conclusion from grandparent's comment: To me, this is literally why the I'm-beyond-government-control crypto dream cannot work.
You should be aware that the decision of jurisdiction can pull you into courts you never knew existed, in jurisdictions you wouldn't imagine could exist. Finding a country that won't extradite you may become an issue of treaty, or even a string of treaties. IANAL, but I sat in on one of my brother's international law classes, which quickly convinced me to not fuck around in that arena. Lawyer up early.
Most countries define security as either equity or fixed income instrument and that's all. Nothing of the US "maybe it is, maybe it isn't ... is there expectatiom of profits? ... so maybe it is or it isn't"
My country has a list of things that are securities written into the law. Until they write in there crypto tokens they are not securities.
> Filecoin's ICO seems to be one of the few exceptions to follow securities law.
The SEC commissioner said that no ICO has registered as a security so far. Given that Filecoin was one of the only ICOs to openly advertise themselves as being a security, it seems like they could be in even more legal trouble than everyone else.
They filed a Reg D exemption, which is different from a registration, but allows you to legally offer securities if you comply with a narrow set of restrictions.
