There is no evidence I've seen that the SEC views it like that but it is definitely within the range of possibility if they really were determined to make something of it. I don't think the SEC would start doing more than a fine because Burnside, Vorhees, and others all got a fine after a settlement. If you cooperate with the SEC then you get a fine so far.
The SEC has a set of tests from the Howey test to the Hawaii Market Center test to judge whether something falls under the jurisdiction of the security exchange act of 1933 via the investment contract section. Generally speaking, vocabulary doesn't matter nor marketing material rather the substance of the transaction from which parties financially benefited, expectation of return, the medium upon which funds were solicited and the nature of the enterprise. It's a complex topic and generally is resolved by either a formal legal opinion (a more likely than not letter) or a no action letter directly from the SEC.
The SEC cannot arrest people, nor can it pursue criminal conduct. This is done typically either at the state level or via the DOJ. Usually actions are multi-agency with the IRS and SEC examining one plank and state law enforcement examining another. Also they tend to bundle enforcement together with emerging industries. A great example would be the crackdown on online gambling back in the early 2000s. There is also the ability to pursue international enforcement via treaty. The SEC can reach into over 80 countries if there was provable American participation in the event in question. How enforcement could be done would be for the SEC to issue a ruling on ICOs and apply it retroactively giving them the mandate to pursue anyone within some window (up to ten years, usually five or so). Most will be given the option to settle for a fine and some restrictions. Others will become the poster child of the enforcement action.
In terms of personal liability for running a delegate, if the person was connected to invictus during or before the AGS event, then it could invite additional scrutiny from the relevant bodies. The bigger issue is if a bitasset is considered a derivative under US law and subject to CFTC regulation. Bitshares cannot work without delegates under the current design therefore the CFTC can argue that its under their jurisdiction and pursue enforcement against the delegates for operating the network. The same could be said about mining perhaps; however, bitcoin does not permit complex financial derivatives or arbitrary code to be run. Also miners are not elected nor are paid a salary for providing a host of network services beyond block validation.
I think the community should strongly consider a delegate indemnity fund to cover legal costs associated with operating a delegate. It's an added layer of security and support for the role.
However, we don't know why he left so it might not be a matter of being able to "let go of the past". Unfortunately none of us will ever know because BM is a damned vault with these reasons. Charles just wants to eat lunch with you when you ask--though don't get me wrong, I'm sure a couple brewskies with him would be a good time!
Let's have lunch.
Why call it an ICO? That language seems like it would attract additional scrutiny. Why not call it a crowd sale or pre-mine?
I actually call these events DCCMs to avoid this very issue:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xG1hkPbk0uuavjPc_gt_eWxEUbWM1SlsxNmhGdRIUtg/editI think you have a point about being under scrutiny. I just don't know why we as a community choose to use language which would bring scrutiny.
People are practical and have to communicate complex concepts to others. It doesn't help much to add a layer of legal obfuscation as a CYA. I suppose it is necessary, however.