Use-your-brain,

If you want to pile on about tokens being an investment, why would you go after arguably the most compliant ICO ever to try and generate tokens? I'm not sure it's your intention or not but it screams FUD or someone who hasn't actually looked at their project. If Ambrosus goes to court so would every other ICO ever....including Ethereum! (which was also an ICO in case you didn't know)

They're [Ambrosus] is trying to set the benchmark and abide by all regulations -- which is something that is obviously needed for a project planning to forge relationships with government and the UN. They clearly aren't stupid and will likely be listed on exchanges, but they can't say that for legal reasons as well as the fact exchanges do not like it when projects get ahead of themselves and say these things. Can you point to any credible ICO that has said otherwise recently? Umm no. If an ICO is talking about exchanges or how it's an investment that is a red-flag to run for the hills. It would tell me they are the stupid ones and they either don't give a shit about compliance/regulation or don't care in which case a rational individual could only conclude they're in it for the short-term. Why do I come to this conclusion about being listed on exchanges in the future? Look at their advisors -- some of them have tie ins (equity or partnerships) with exchanges, so yeah put 2 and 2 together on your own. I can safely say these things because this is speculation on my part. Ambrosus hasn't told me this, and no I don't work for them (I did 'invest' however). I just did my own homework and realized that this is most likely the case.

PS - the tokens HAVE to be transferable. I encourage you to read the whitepaper because you'd learn the token (amber) is tied to the supply chain of materials/products. It can and will be sliced & diced as supply chain logistics dictate.