You wouldn’t need to ask the SEC that hypothetical because you can see their long history of bringing cases against “bread thieves” and (correctly) infer that they would bring a similar suit against you for the same or similar conduct. To the extent you think your hypothetical situation differs enough from the case history that you and your lawyers are genuinely unsure (or, more commonly, genuinely believe they wouldn’t charge you) then you can ask them via a No Action Letter which is basically a formal way of asking them “What would you do if I did XYZ?” The risk, of course, is that they’ll tell you they would view XYZ as a violation of federal securities laws and take action accordingly. There’s also the risk that they’ll change their mind— it’s not a promise or even a permanent reprieve. It’s just one “police officer” telling one person how they would hypothetically respond to that one fact pattern at that one moment in time. The next “officer” might take an entirely different view.

First of all, not everything can be reduced to the absolute most simplistic of metaphors like you're trying to do.

Second,

> Last month, the SEC issued Coinbase with a Wells notice, which is often one of the final steps before the regulator formally issues charges. It generally lays out the framework of the regulatory argument and offers the potentially accused an opportunity to rebut the SEC’s claims.

It sounds like Coinbase has gotten the answers they were looking for, they just don't like it.

The vast majority of government workers (including such lowly people as the workers who check applications for food stamps) cannot give advice because humans are fallible and will get it wrong sometimes. The government doesn't want people suing them for that situation, so they just ban all advice basically.