A quick read, and I must insert the disclaimer "I am not a lawyer" and I don't even play one on the Internet, suggests that Texas found that there were two significant problems with the way that BitConnect was running their business.

First of all they were using directly invested funds to issue loans without actually owning the funds to back up covering those loans at any given point. That alone is probably enough to get them prosecuted as a Ponzi scheme, with the cryptocurrency issue being an entirely separate issue and probably in place to provide cover for that activity

Secondly, they were using that cryptocurrency has cover for a very traditional investment roll, which the cease-and-desist goes into in the latter portion. And when I say "very traditional investment roll," what I mean is "really good scam, without the really good part."

In effect, cryptocurrency is really just the smoke that they used to cover the fire of fraudulent activity. Which, honestly, I feel goes on a lot across the entire industry, if we're being truthful. BitConnect was running a pretty obvious Ponzi scheme even from a very superficial read of the facts. I imagine the cease-and-desist will readily turn into some actual charges and taxes without too long a wait.