Bitcoin was a security the second it came into existence. The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities. Don't confuse regulators clarifying how they're going to enforce the law with changes in the law. Those clarifications come out to make it clear to "magical thinkers" that existing laws do apply and will be enforced as X.

> The law doesn't need to retroactively be applied, it always applied. New things aren't somehow immune from existing law because they haven't been explicitly named by the law. The law doesn't need to say "crypto's are securities" for crytpo's to be securities.

How about.. when a law is wrong? or if it's not just? or is changed, for this matter? since you think it's retroactively applied, which way or which one of 2 or more conflicting law are/is 'applied' retroactively?

The law isn't wrong, bitcoin is obviously a financial security and always was from its inception. Nothing is being retroactively applied here. The only issue here is cryto fans odd beliefs thinking crypto is somehow immune to existing regulations.