Can't say I disagree.
The famous blog post states intent to circumvent securities laws while achieving the same economic reality of raising funds by selling stake to investors seeking a return from success of the project. That's basically a roadmap for SEC prosecution. Whether the SEC chooses to prioritize this over hundreds of other such candidate token/ICO cases is unknown to me. I always felt that blog post was a strategic blunder (i.e. harmful admission) driven by ego ("Look how clever I am, I figured out how to skirt the law while achieving the same thing").
Just my uninformed and ignorant view, not legal advice.
Then we can say the same about all the bitcoin miners too, imo. Every miner is selling stake to investors seeking a return from the success of the project(bitcoin)
Where is the blog post stating this was a pre-planned scheme to raise money from investors to pay for development?
In fact it doesn't even raise money for development. One of the big issues with BTC has always been how to pay for development.