I disagree with how much it matters what it is called. In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".
Your missing the point. Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is. They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply. So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law. Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy". They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.
I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.
Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" if you helps you sleep better at night, it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by, and it wouldn't even if you did it from day one. If Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a currency, say it was designed to "fight spam" however defacto people realized it made a good currency and started using it as such the same regs would apply. The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence. They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply. If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.