I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best.
You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing.
I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?
Me? What I'm saying is exactly in my posts above you.
I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.
This discussion isn't about companies accepting BTC for services rendered.
Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC.
This is what you said. The complete and seminal discussion of the matter is in MP's article.