I think cryptojedi is the guy that's not familiar with the law. True that promoting securities without a license is illegal, but this is where social media has made this area really fuzzy and why what is said about regulation is actually poignant. It's poignant because SEC needs to adjust their laws for social media.

Disclaimer I'm not saying what these guys did is right. What I'm saying is they aren't certainly doomed and that's something people should be concerned about.

Here's why SEC needs to adjust laws

Watercooler Promotion

Suppose you are talking with a guy around a watercooler about some new stock you heard about and you're going to invest in it. You happen to not invest in it, but your friend you were talking about it with does and loses their shirt. Can they sue you for promoting it? No. Why?

It wasn't real promotion. SEC doesn't even use the term promotion in their law. The word they use is endorsement. This is what celebrities do when an athlete promotes footwear or soft drinks. It's not promotion, it's endorsement. It's called endorsement because it's paid for by the product owner.

Basically, cryptojedi is wrong that these guys are heading for jailtime unless it can be proved that they received extra endorsement incentives from bitconnect. That is, above what the ponzi scheme earned them.

Example, if an unnamed famous athlete sells his watch on ebay. That's not an endorsement of the watch brand and neither can it be considered that he received endorsement money from the watchmaker. It is also not an endorsement if he makes a youtube video pointing to his ebay auction to try and get people to buy his watch.