These are great points, especially the dual consideration of an asset as both a security and commodity simultaneously. That is something that we hadn’t previously considered and was not brought up in our conversations with regulators.
However, we are under the impression that the overarching statement made by the CFTC that cryptocurrencies should be treated as commodities is more sweeping in its nature than previous conflicting SEC-CFTC cases (cross-border swaps etc.), where the SEC claimed that only a certain sub-type of the product was under SEC regulation while the rest fell to the CFTC.
Maybe “negate” was the wrong word but it’s hard to see a case where the SEC tries to claim complete regulatory authority over a class of product that the CFTC has previously defined as totally in their regime.
We could see a case where certain types of ICOs, such as those offering profit sharing or voting rights could be claimed as securities and therefore under SEC regulatory authority but, in the case of CoinJob, we don’t see it.