2) Monero does support mass TXs and has a market based solution in place to allow the main chain blocksize to grow to accommodate them.
Are you referring to block chain compression or some variant of pruning?
Afaik, Monero can't handle very high TX/sec for the reasons which are same propagation versus orphan rates issues that plague Bitcoin if the block size is increased too much.
4) Lumping "IPO or mineable by speculators" into one makes no sense from a US or global regulatory point of view.
My point was the two have the same target market demographics of speculators.
I will link from that point in the comparison table to this post so readers can find your elaboration, and the
extended discussion.
I do not know what issuance model is being proposed by the OP.
Giving away coins for free, thus not a MSB. Not a centralized virtual currency, because the protocol is decentralized PoW (with a twist). Also not an unregistered investment security, because not being sold to nor significantly obtained by investors.
Note it has been brought to my attention that most of the Auroracoins were dumped to speculators. Obviously I don't plan to repeat the mistakes in their marketing. Remember marketing is very nuanced. You have to get the details right. Just one detail can totally change the outcome.
No I am referring to adaptive blocksize limits and a tail emission that allow for Monero to scale with technological change. This scaling is driven by a proper fee market that allows for the blocksize to grow provided that the proper price is paid. It is a close to unique and critical feature of Monero that has had very little attention even within the Monero community. To a large extent I am a lone wolf on this. Bitcoin does not have adaptive blocksize limits nor does have a tail emission, and will have serious issue when the emission is close to running out.
I will respond to the rest in the legal thread.