Regarding the SEC's belief that many cryptocurrencies are securities
The SEC initially identified most cryptocurrencies as securities. If you don't want to be identified as a security, you need to provide sufficient evidence to prove that a certain cryptocurrency is not a security. Isn't this the so-called "innocent defense" in law?
The so-called innocent defense means that the law enforcement agency first finds you guilty, and then you need to provide evidence to prove your innocence. The whole process requires the defendant and the lawyer to be busy.
Isn't the United States a country that claims to be free and democratic, and a so-called rule of law country? And didn't the public intellectuals boast that there is an innocent defense in the United States before?
And the innocent defense means that the law enforcement agency accuses the defendant, and the evidence is provided by the prosecution, that is, the prosecution must provide evidence of the defendant's guilt within the effective time, otherwise there is insufficient evidence and it cannot be prosecuted?
Why did the SEC start to engage in "non-rule of law"? Is their so-called "rule of law" only based on the status of "equality"?