Okay it might. How does that help your argument here?
I said I would give you the last word, yet you ask me a question.
Because Monero more clearly fits that Howey test than the proposal AnonyMint made. So the greater likelihood is that AnonyMint's proposal is legal than is Monero.
1. Even if this were true, it wouldn't help your argument. Monero could be illegal and your propose scheme could also be illegal. Your statement proves nothing.
2. It isn't true. TPTB's proposed scheme, viewed from the perspective of "economic reality" in its totality, incorporates an ICO that will be used to raise money to support a collection of related efforts by related parties, including the JAMBOX effort. it was also stated that the ICO coin coin will be a vehicle which can be used to acquire JAMBOX tokens from people who want to sell them (and suggested this might be the only such vehicle). This ties the components together in a scheme that structurally has no viable analogy with Monero. So the two are structurally different and incomparable. On this basis it is entirely possible that either, both, or neither could be legal.
I'm reasonably confident you won't, and can't, find a "legal bypass" that allows investor funds to flow into developing something that has the reasonable expectation of somehow benefiting the investors (and if it doesn't, the investors either won't buy it or are being scammed). I'm also reasonably confident that not everything that is illegal will be prosecuted, so everyone will have to make their own judgements on this. TPTB seemed interested in these issues of legality, more so than me in some ways.