We are not about to learn who "Satoshi Nakamoto" actually is or was. There have been plenty of other parties with greater power looking into that matter and they either didn't solve the problem of if they did they are not telling what they know.
But it's not actually required to know everything. The motivations are usually discernable vis the subsequent facts and the Qui Bono principle. I will extrapolate outwards from and interpolate to fill the gaps between the scant facts available to me.
So who promoted the brand name of Bitcoin, so it would not fade away into obscurity? Looking back and allowing for the more significant data to be unrevealed in a search, I look for innocuous data which can provide me with circumstantial evidence, and that circumstantial evidence may be tested against later occurring events to raise or reduce it's accuracy rating, while always allowing for some doubt to remain.
The first records I find are geek forum related, and early discussion papers as in by Nick Szabo, one of various candidates for Nakamoto, whose blog is here: https://unenumerated.blogspot.ie/2017/
Dominic Frisby thought it was Szabo and said so in an RT Keiser Report, while acknowledging that he had no proof around 2014-2014. You will note that Max Keiser who had a good eye for enthusiastically selling a silver bullish story to retail by web media, returned to the Bitcoin story later.
The earliest discussions wander into technical forum discussion about how it works, and early product placement into the hands of techies and tech writers. Wired, for example, wrote about it. This is product placement and product development in my eyes. Then it should have organically risen or faded according to some average profile of new products. At a certain stage discussion began to come out of Stanford, and soon after the Economist ran a piece.
That is enough for me to form my first working hypothesis.
The first corporation I find was : https://bitcoincapitalcorp.com/ which is substantially owned by Nadir Energy & Mining Corp. No information from that direction yet, possibly never will be.
As for regulation, the loose regulatory leash with which BTC has been indulged can be contrasted with eg Silk Road site. This says, just like non regulation of strange gold trading characteristics that higher powers are involved on that side of the trade.
Basically the thing that stares back when one looks at BTC is the lack of volume. Things that go up on low volume are usually bought by novice investors, and after they buy the asset off the insiders the trend reverses. You never know, this time could be different. But I'd never risk my money on anything for which I can not make an estimate of the risk.