...
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.
When it comes to Ethereum the ether itself may of may not meet the test, but I fail to see how the
promise to create or deliver the ether in the winter or 2015/2015 does not meet the test.
Also, please note that before the release of the Genesis Block in the winter of 2014/2015, ether will not be usable in any way, in fact it wont technically be created until that point in time.
https://www.ethereum.org/Yes, promises to deliver in the future are a problem point with regulations, and very often with civil action.
Some distinction should be made between the offering parties (coin-makers) and the exchange. Those doing securitization are bearing the bigger risks.
The Exchanges as a group tend to get a lighter hand though, unless they partake in the offerings in a material way.
They tend to get a pass on the Electronic Communication Network exclusions. There are a bunch of "No-Action Letters" for Instanet and BATS System because the SEC repeatedly rules that it is an ECN communicating quotes for asks and offers. Taking a commission on the trades from system subscribers is fine.
It starts to cross the lines when Broker and Dealer activities begin. If an ECN is trading its own book, or making any sort of financial advisement, its trouble.