1 It is now legitimately hard to evaluate future legal situations for a new industrial situation whose fundamentals I do not have the math to understand. 

Okay, that I do not understand blockchain, distributed ledgers, or neural nets should not prove anything.  Lots of things I do not understand have feasible industrial applications.  For example, I can make a persuasive argument that I do not understand key processes in baking, which is very well supported by evidence as a human economic activity. 

Yet, the legal environment is hard to forecast. 

Businesses generally like a predictable legal environment, it decreases risk, decreases costs of managing risk, and decreases transaction costs. 

Right now, American law is more chaotic, because of JDs and law faculty making a point of being extra stupid. 

Sotomeyer was an idiot to mention Seal Team Six, and so have been her co-panickers.  Her legal analysis was wrong, and she would have known better if she were not a communist, and a bloody idjit.  So there are seperation of powers arguments that imply that the legislature and the judiciary cannot do certain things to the executive, but those are of no practical relevance, because of the UCMJ.  The only military organizations that the President can order under the executive power are under the UCMJ, or are the unorganized militia.  The executive signed off on the UCMJ, and absolutely no one would believe that an irregular revision of the UCMJ to allow various things was legally binding. 

Communists in general are henwits, who routinely mispredict 'and the president orders the military and...', because they do not think like Americans.  Ordinary Americans, competent to keep noses clean and out of prison, look at a use of force situation and analyze it from the perspective that they are going to have to persuade other Americans that it was lawful, and appropriate, according to what those other Americans understand as just.  Communists seem to just think in a raving stream of 'systemic' and 'oppression' and stuff. 

People who stay in the military long enough, and avoid immediate bad conduct discharges, learn some caution, especially when they need to be mentally flexible with risky tasks.  No sane person there is going to conclude "Okay, I should incriminate myself on the record because I was told to" and "There would totally not be any negative consequences from killing an American that a lot of other Americans like and respect." 

The fundamental instability in American law is that it involves persuading Americans, and that Americans have two different conflicting models of how American law works, and resolving which one holds in theory is impossible.  These are the republican and the democratic theories.  One implies that the president could, hypothetically, legally order the unorganized militia to hang congress, and the other implies that it is lawful for a large enough group of unorganized militia to hang congress on their own judgement.

And the Democrat Party, and the various formal legal system lawyers running around with their hair on fire, have implied that Trump ordered the unorganized militia to hang congress.  This seems to be untrue.  They have also set out to make conditions such that would by honor obligate some Americans to treat such commands as if they were true, and also lawful commands.

Trump in office is the best way to defuse these problems, but there are a bunch of frogwits which have not intuited this. 

The sorts of conspiracies within legal professions that the law faculty have implied are possible for them to conduct, make any sort of miscarriage of justice hypothetically possible within the formal legal system.  Thus, the formal legal system is thought of as in need of repair, and is no longer truly binding where disputes are concerned. 

This is a recipe for regulatory chaos in practice, where companies big enough for political fights are concerned, and others in the same industries. 

Some industries, we can tell that there is something there, that might survive regulatory chaos. 

But, if I do not understand the there, (which I do for bakeries, peopel like eating) then it is hard to judge for me what a relatively competent regulatory hand in general legal chaos will do for the industry. 

2 Agreed.

On the subject of crypto specifically, the major problem the past four years has been uncertainty.  The SEC under Gary Gensler has been big on litigation and very very light on clarifying what the rules are supposed to be that you need to follow to avoid litigation.
Over the next four years, there's likely to be less litigation, or at least less litigation out arising out of pure animosity, but whether they will adopt a clear and well-defined set of rules is not known.