It's a hot topic about the risk in ICO's. People are falsely in belief regulations protect them with regular securities, and so there has been a backlash against ICO's in general. It's clear most people don't fully understand ICO's, and even less so how paramount autonomy of asset use is to new generations. ICO's have the potential to be entirely peer regulated without looking towards regulation from a centralized source - being antithetical to the crypto world. Take a look a small look into the dark path into the past that some are working toward.
Basically the gist of the article is that institutions that desire the advantages of traditional securities are looking for a path in that allows them to easily, and legally take advantage of the markets. While just a step forward into the legality is appealing just in the fact that it allows participation, it may also represent the dirty world of traditional investments where vested parties can pump & dump, short, and a variety of other things to wreak absolute havoc. Don't be surprised if a registered ICO's gets a loan from a parent company running it, pumps the market, dumps it, and claims insurance on the inability for it to pay the loan despite paying off the principle; due to gross interest. That's what the registered security world is like, and it is 'legal'. Use your imagination how much anyone working for the parent company, under the ICO, walks away with short of legal accusations and threats. It's just [centralized] business.