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."
Yes, I am familiar with the case and its subsequent applications.
It does not apply to trading and exchange of capital.
It does apply to offerings which entail the use of capital by others, futures, derivatives, contracts for difference, or securities, and it emphasizes substance over form with the test which you articulated well:
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.
It might satisfy it, I don't really know what Supernet is. Very possibly it does, from what I've read of it. Ethereum has perhaps a similar issue.
Certainly none of the other items on offer at poloniex would satisfy that test.
Open sourced distributed developed software money is neither a common enterprise, nor does it depend solely on the efforts of#4.
Centralized development can become problematic however as it pushes the line closer to #4.
#2 Expectation of profits... There seems to be quite a bit of that being promulgated.