> It certainly calls the intentions of the SEC into question.

If you want to make the argument that there is evidence (whether from their response to Goldman-Sachs or otherwise) that the SEC's interest in the case at issue here is not securities fraud, go ahead and make the argument.

Waving your hand in the direction of Goldman-Sachs, however, is not making that argument.

That the SEC has a relatively small and new target in their sites while letting the larger and far older targets skate is all the argument I need.

That's not even remotely an argument that the current case isn't about securities fraud (much less that it is specifically about restraining Bitcoin.) I mean, the simplest explanation of those hostile to the SEC is that the SEC is concerned about securities fraud -- except when the graduated is big enough and politically connected enough , in which case they lose interest.