You’re making a lot of assumptions here. The defining value behind SafeCoin is its use in a transaction for the purchase of network space or computing time, as a result it is classified not as a security but as a utility token.
SEC v. Howey is the case law in the US behind defining a security and there is a commonly used “Howey test” which requires a potential security to meet the following requirement to be classified as a security:
- You trade the token for something of intrinsic value
- The investment is described as something which will have a greater return
- The finances of the company offering the security are interwoven with the finances of the security itself
- Any profits returned are as a result of the effort of third parties
Here is a post made by Maidsafe before and after the ICO, you’ll notice that they don’t mention profit, the only value associated with the coin is as follows:
Once the full SAFE network is launched, MaidSafeCoins will be swapped for safecoins at a 1:1 ratio. All other mentions of the intention of the coin are in relation to its use as a network storage purchase token.
As such, the coin doesn’t pass the Howey test for security classification and is considered a utility token. MaidSafe has no fiduciary responsibility beyond the responsibility of providing the originally offered value: Converting MSC to SafeCoin and allowing the usage of them for purchasing network space.
With all these things in mind, there is no reason for Maidsafe to be in contact with the SEC (especially considering that Maidsafe isn’t even based in the USA, it’s based in Scotland, UK), and the UK’s Securities Commision will hold a similar stance on the position of MSC/SafeCoin as non-securities.