Aye, that's why I didn't mention it as it would likely face the similar situation as btct and now bitfunder are running into. Colored coins is the best way I think, especially if more governments come to the realization that they won't be able to restrict something that exists within the bitcoin protocol itself. I see the problem with direct shares, but I mean the further we keep getting pushed back here, the more its going to seem like downright oppression. You could make the same argument for using colored coins and say that you're still trading unregistered shares, no matter that you use the term 'colored coins'. They have to realize at some point that its going to be much easier for them to just try and adapt to the changing landscape instead of yanking it backwards so they can have it the way it should be.
Maybe so. OTOH, I dont think there is much harm in adhering to existing laws either. Registering a security isnt that hard, and the disclosures it requires can only be considered a good thing for potential investors. Even if these laws wouldnt apply, most of what they dictate should be common sense, and would avoid 99% of all pirate, labcoin and similar scams. Is that really worth fighting against?
The only annoying thing is that you'd have to register those securities in just about any country, it would be nice if there was some central "internet security and exchange commission".