In the United States the SEC mentioned that ICOs must start registering themselves with them before any offerings are made. This leads me to believe that ICOs are going to become legally the same thing as IPOs, in that what is offered is treated as a security.

This could be where the ICO model clearly departs from the Crowd funding model. With Crowd Funding there is no legal obligation for the project to live up to its promises. If a Kickstarter suddenly shuts down and takes all the money, there's little legal recourse for investors to take. As far as I know the project cannot be held liable for broken promises, however with an ICO that doesn't work.

When you invest in a Kickstarter you may be investing in a company, but that company is not providing you with anything in return for investing.

When you invest in an ICO you are expecting to receive a token with the expectation that it will appreciate, much like shares in a company.

In addition to this, if such tokens are treated as securities, then the company who issued them are legally responsible for their performance.
Could you imagine if a crypto startup got sued into the ground just because a bunch of people dumped their tokens after the ICO?

You could find yourself with a similar lawsuit that Ripple are faced with.

In the current environment of legal ambiguity we find ourselves in, holding an ICO seems like a dangerous venture - at least in the United States. I figure until the laws are clarified it might be better to actually hold a Kickstarter to fund your crypto project, instead of an ICO.

Just my opinion though.