I am interested in economics, particularly macroeconomics, and I do enjoy philosophical discussions on this theme. Crypto is fascinating from this perspective. It disrupts, opens new opportunities, but challenges existing frameworks.
My view is that anything that serves to discourage adopting the utility token as a speculative instrument is usually a positive. Also that I find it hard to see how current frameworks can be interpreted as definitely applying to these tokens, in the way that you seem to think they do.
I am not a lawyer, but I would have thought that insider trading is more about individual actions, based on private insider information on publicly traded companies.
The closest analogy I can see with what you are describing is more along the lines of stock buybacks or share issuances. I think stock buybacks are damaging. They have had led to situations such as Pfizer or Cisco spending more, at times, on stock repurchase than on primary research. A good example, is Cisco vs Huawei (a family owned enterprise). I found William Lazonick the [most illuminating on this theme]( The Economist Who Put Stock Buybacks in Washington’s Crosshairs | The New Yorker) But in this case the behaviour isn’t damaging.
Again, I am no lawyer or professional finance expert, but issuing or repurchasing utility tokens (seemingly) randomly or with disregard for their market value seems to me to be rational and pragmatic. It reminds me of central banks, who deal with state currencies and their market value, sometimes to the detriment of the market value but to the benefit of the State.
Finally, on legality, is it actually legal to openly suggest fraud? I think normally you would need to declare that your statement is without prejudice, otherwise there might be the risk of libel? That’s the way it always use to be in the UK, but it’s been a while.