That gate wasn't constructed until centuries later. The reinterpretation is thus erroneous.
The experts disagree, so can we. Maybe it was babbling nonsense, maybe it was profound.
This case would apply to derivatives contracts, and futures contracts.
No, that is not right at all. Did you read the article? It involved a leaseback scheme, not derivatives or futures at all.
The "investment contract" interpretation has been used to prosecute all manner of "investment schemes."
The test is:
1. investment of money due to
2. an expectation of profits arising from
3. a common enterprise
4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
I don't really see how supernet could fail to satisfy that test.