Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's stupid is that quotes like this, not actual substance of what their business practices are, are the only way the SEC can establish what is and isn't a "security." there is no real truth or objective test and the SEC has offered no meaningful guidance. so they just determine this based on subjective emails the CEO sent once.
The definition of "security" is pretty objective (Howey test), but the answer it produces tends not to be liked by people in the crypto space, so they argue hard about why it's not a definition of security. What quotes like these do is make it trivial to prove the mens rea (intent) requirements, and put a lie to claims that they didn't know it was a security or that their interpretation as not-a-security was reasonab…
""" The Howey Test asks whether a transaction constitutes an "investment contract," which is a type of security. If it is an investment contract, it must satisfy four criteria:
It is an investment of money. The investment is in a common enterprise. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party.
If the answer to all these questions is "yes," the transaction is likely an investment contract and, therefore, a security. However, please note that this is a simplified explanation. The actual determination can be complex and might require a detailed analysis by legal professionals. """
To me it DEFINITELY sounds like crypto is a security, but it seems like it mostly hinges on whether people expect to make a profit by investing. Which some people do and some people don't. But most people do right?