The real question is: 

What makes you think that Securitized Token Offerings (STOs) aren't regulated crowdfunding? 

Crowdfunding consist of 3 elements: 

1. A human looking for money

2. Goes on the internet and ask strangers for money 

3. In exchange for their good, product, service or use/equity/obligation for using their good, product or service. 

If you do "unregulated" crowdfunding, good luck. Thats called an "ICO". Where as an "STO" doesn't actually exist and is just a fancy marketing term for debt/equity crowdfunding. How do STOs not exist? There is no such thing as a "token offering". It was a term made up by a lawyer or a marketer to attempt to add sexiness or gray area to existing JOBS Act regulations. Its like saying "I'm going to securitize a gummy bear offering." What is a "gummy bear offering"? Its the same thing as a token offering. Its a made up financial instrument that ultimately is crowdfunding. Whether its donation, debt, equity or royalty when you use the internet to solicit support, from strangers, thats crowdfunding. 

Here are 2 videos that provide additional context. 

https://youtu.be/oGAXW8GPcj0 

https://youtu.be/lbphClg6bPI 

Love the question and keep them coming! 

"What is Facebook's cryptocurrency plan with Libra?"  

Short answer: Global Domination. 

Long answer: Well, it depends... 

First let's break down the question. "Facebook's cryptocurrency plan..." Facebook doesn't have a cryptocurrency plan. It has a business plan that its leveraging decentralized ledger "like" technology to implement. The question really is, "What is Facebook's plans for growth in the 2020s?". That is a much easier answer. Facebook's growth plan for the 2020s is to grow. 

How will Facebook use Libra Coin to grow?

Libra Coin isn't a crypto nor a currency. At best it is an encrypted coupon. Its not a cryptocurrency because the term "cryptocurrency" implies some manner of decentralization. Libra Coin is about as decentralized as a black hole. That said, along with folks like Ripple, EOS, etc..., Facebook will push and evolve the very definition of "cryptocurrency" to mean whatever makes the most sense for their lobbying efforts. One of the benefits of being a multinational, billion dollar corporation and media conglomerate is that you can literally define people's reality worldwide, in the push of a button.

So, yes. In the future everyone will "know" that Libra Coin is a cryptocurrency. Because Facebook has said so. In that respects, Libra Coin will also be a currency. Why? Again, Facebook's lobbying arm will tell governments around the world, one donation (bribe) at a time, that it is. Libra Coin is a currency because Facebook says it is. Tada! Facebook's cryptocurrency (which is really a coupon) gets recognized and adopted as a means of transacting, globally. 

That helps Facebook grow. Not since the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company have private corporations had the the "legal" right to mint their own money. Gaining recognition as a "currency", a global thing of value created out of thin code, is what helps Facebook grow. The additional layer of financial data, combined with the best practices of current surveillance capitalism, will put Facebook in the unprecedented position of not only being able to influence the outcomes of elections...But take it a step further and pay for the outcome...with its own money. And by Facebook's "own money", I literally mean, its OWN money #LibraCoin.

Mark Zuckerberg is on the precipice of becoming this century's Boss Tweed and Facebook this generation's Tammany Hall. But its not just about the politics. Its about the money. After all, money is the fuel of political capital. What will this private, Switzerland based, corporation with hundreds of billions of "real dollars" and the ability to mint new money out of thin code, do with its new found power? 

The short answer is: Global domination. 

The long answer is: Well, it depends... 

Hyperbole aside (of which I feel there is zero in the above) Facebook having the ability and legal right to create it's own currency is a threat to US National Security and global security. Why? How? That could never be? What happens when Huawei or WeChat decides to introduce their own "cryptocurrencies"? Or better yet, some Russian backed company? Now ask yourself how you feel about the idea of a private corporation being able to mint it's own money. After all, what could possibly go wrong? They're just humans with the best intentions, right? #CorporationsArePeople #CitizensUnited 

In theory, yes. In practicallity, no. 

Token (is suppose) to work like a token from Chuck E Cheese, the laundry mat or a video aracde. But since there are no "arcades" built where people can presently use these so called tokens, tokens are functionally securities. Why? Cause you're giving someone money for the purpose of building their "arcade". There is a scheme under Rewards/Donation based RegCF that this can be done. Alas, no one wants to follow those guidelines. It'd make too much sense and your customers/investors would have recourse should you not deliver the good/product/service. Which is why ~98% of ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) / ITOs (Initial Token Offerings) will fail. Lotta fraud, combined with the general challenges of creating viable solutions using a novel technology, aka #blockchain. 

Coins - See above. 

Cryptocurrencies - in theory suppose to be used as a currency. In my opinion Litecoin comes closet to this. We can debate that til the cows come home. But in general the question is, do we need 3k different currencies? Already for fiat currencies we have roughly 180 and most are garbage. Feel free to pay me in Kuwaitee or Bahrainee dinar anytime. 

But in general, there is a lot of education that still needs to be done. For the moment, as folks talk about cryptos/coins/tokens just roll with it. The only time you really need to call them out is when they confuse cryptocurrencies with #digitalcurrencies. They're completely two different things. 

How do I know whats a cryptocurrency v a digital currency?

Simple: 

Does your "currency" have an administrator/central issuing body? Then its a digital currency. If it doesn't have an adminstrator/central issuing body its a cryptocurrency, a la #bitcoin. 

Questions? 

Cryptocurrencies are a customer serivce battle between the government and the banks. So ultimately, the cryptocurrencies that will be sustainable will focus and execute on two things: 

1 Easy end user experience. From aquisition to wallet safety

2 Community engagement. This means multiple things but primarily, a) where can people actually use the currency b) What inspires people to switch from fiat to cryptos from a practical purpose.

In 2018, most people in the crypto space are speculators. They don't care about practical uses for cryptos. They care abot ROI. Until you get past those people, into legit problem solving / pain points, cryptocurrencies are just a mechanism for semi/legal gambling. 

This is not to say that cryptos aren't important. Last year there were about 1600 of them. As of June 2018 there are roughly 4000 ICOs/cryptos being planned. Do we need that many currencies? No. But cryptocurrencies are a blockchain awareness, education and adoption campaign. And that is worthy of a tip of the hat. Because the tech, blockchain, is where the future is at. Most likely a tokenized furutre. So its not that cryptos aren't important but most will be non-exchange traded tokens in the future. 

In summary, we'll have less than a dozen cryptocurrencies in a decade. While nearly every business will have a token. Led first by Bank of America (as they already have a non-crypto-coin), Amazon and then the other banks masquerading as fintech companies: Alibaba, Apple, Uber, etc... The future will be tokenized, as a reward for customer loyalty. Imagine being able to share airline points and exchange flight tickets, as easily as sending a text message. Thats tokenization at work. And thats the future. 

As ICOs themselves are unregulated crowdfunding the question is a faint. Unregulated token sales had their moment in the sun 2017. There are a variety of reasons that the token sales were or will be deemed "unregulated securities". The biggest reason is that there was or is no place to actually use the token. The "tokens" where sold for the purpose of raising funds, for the future use of something. Had these token sales (aka ICOs) followed Reward Based crowdfunding regs, they probably would not have the issues they do today. However, as the ICOs (aka token sales) were for the purpose of raising capital and for the future delivery of a good or service, they clearly come under the rules of securities. 

So "How do I think token sales based on blockchain will be impacted by continued SEC enforcement". There will always be an unregulated market for fly-by-night business ideas. Humans love deals to-good-to-be-true and preying upon the greed of each other. I think the real question you should be asking is, 

"How will the end of net neutrality impact crowdfunding, as the cost of online marketing is expected to skyrocket?"