Sorry those are securities as defined under the law:
Are you seriously trying to cite an "invitation for comments" from some law firm as a legal precedent having valid legal standing in USA law?
I mentioned "pork bellies" as a good example. Although pork bellies are not traded on Chicago Mercantile Exchange since 2011, the legal analysis of "When and how a pig can become a security subject to regulation?" is still a valid exam problem for the law students.
Well almost anything one can do in life could make one culpable to multiple jeopardy when considering the vagaries of a multiple of legal systems and common laws. My point was to address the reasonably well defined securities regulatory law where it is so encoded. I considered the USA and EU (not each EU country) for starters.
It seems to me that if what you've done is reasonably in line with the very strict USA securities law, you've done good disclosure (i.e. enumerated risks, what you provide and don't provide, etc), and you've done a fair deal and not egregiously harmed any one, then the risks are about the same as
committing 3 felonies a day just by breathing.
And my points are:
a) you have no legal training
b) you seem to lack even amateur's appreciation of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system and how it applies to a common law land like USA
c) you are misapplying reasoning rooted in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system to an old case from 1946
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
d) you seem to be searching for a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense loophole to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Regulation_S While I understand and commiserate with your general position about societal over-lawyering I also observe that your legalistic divagations are of very low quality.
Much better divagations were posted by John Nagle in 2011:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46486.0but regretfully many of the links are no longer working. The AdSurfDaily case he mentioned ended in imprisonment of Bowdoin in 2012. It would be a much better source for a precedent involving cryptocurrencies in 2015 than some old cases from the 1st half of the 20th century.