Could you maybe fathom the possibility that AnonyMint is so clever he found a paradigm to legally bypass the very regulations he had been researching.
I never claimed otherwise, though frankly I doubt this is possible. Most illegal investment schemes (now)
involve some form of complex obfuscation and the law is designed to, and does, ignore form (i.e. paradigm) in favor of a view toward what is actually being accomplished. However, the abstract law and what is actually prosecuted are two different things, and different people may care more about one or the other. Participants have to make their own judgements.
Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.
And that would be relevant to this thread how exactly?
See quoted underlined, bolded.
Again, I don't see the relevance of Monero.
The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.
Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.
Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?
"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.
I'm pretty sure you're engaging in
appeal to hypocrisy. My relationship with Monero and the legal analysis of Monero is not relevant to your claim here of there being a "legal bypass",
especially if you claim that Monero is also not legal. Surely you must see the futility of that line of argument. If not then I guess TPTB has associated with someone who can't think very clearly.