I've read and thought about the Ripple decision for a few days now, and here are some thoughts from the perspective of someone with an appellate law background. (I clerked on the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court, and practiced as an appellate lawyer.) (1) Contrary to the SEC's suggestions, the *legal* questions presented by crypto are novel, bc cryptocurrencies are often not a share of a company, so to be covered by securities laws they must constitute some other form of "investment contract."

I want to talk a bit about the "process" of regulating a new technology, because I think there are some obvious points worth bringing together. First, regulation by enforcement is bad for many reasons. It provides dangerously low levels of notice which is required for due process; it takes a long time (Ripple still going); it allows regulators to pick the facts on which to make law (so that "bad facts make bad law" becomes our process, instead a cautionary adage).