All posts of course are appreciated, but please do not expect me to just wither when a point appears to have holes in it.
IANAL, but I spent a lot of time on the meetings with lawyers, including securities lawyers (but not related to cryptocoins).
Only the developers truly have the influence to alter the protocol and have it widely adopted. So in my mind the test is whether the developers are acting like an organized controlling manager of the coin.
A) under common law systems:
Your idea of "managerial control" is way to narrow. You've completely neglected the promotion and sales of securities and "managerial control" of said sales and promotion.
Therefore most of your analysis in invalid. One could probably come up with a case where the "security" itself is valid, but was promoted and sold in an invalid way.
You have a circular illogic. There can't be any security if it didn't meet the Howe test, thus the promotion of said product was not a management of a common enterprise nor the promotion of the sale of a security.
I hope you can see that can't have a promotion of a security, if it never is a security.
B) under civil law systems:
The story is completely different. Under those systems the securities law tends to root in the Roman law concept of "depositum irregulare".
Securities law doesn't apply. Nothing met the Howe test so there were no securities involved.
One more thing you seem to be neglecting is that the current prevailing common law definition of "conspiracy" doesn't require a proof of communication between the distributed co-conspirators. It is sufficient for prosecution to show that all "conspirators" acted in furtherance of their common goal.
Well yes I guess if you can prove there was a conspiracy to hide that the buyers of the crowdfund were acting in conspiracy with the developer to continue to expect his managerial control and entreprenurial performance while obfuscating it, but then according to the Howe test you also need to prove the money transferred was used in the common enterprise and not just for the personal use of the developer it was transferred to. You could try to prove that the money was a conspiracy for an advance on his salary for future efforts. But the market value of the asset he sold at crowdfund must be taken into account. Since the crowdfund is a market price, I doubt you can make the argument it was for future salary, since the crowdfund contract will expressly state it is not for that.
In civil law you only need to prove the preponderance of the evidence and not beyond any reasonable doubt. But at least that removes the criminal liability.