Well, you've moved the goalposts a couple of times so I'm not sure where I'm even getting the straw from. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think all of thes

Well, you've moved the goalposts a couple of times so I'm not sure where I'm even getting the straw from. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think all of these are the same category of transaction: - selling someone "virtual land" that doesn't exist yet, and won't until and unless they obtain sufficient investment to build it (my understanding of the original thing), - someone commissioning you to build a dresser for them (what you initially said -- this is not a security, I agree, hence...), - you selling someone a promise of a dresser that will increase in value if they pay you to build it (my proposed change to your scenario to align it more closely to the original thing -- this is indeed, deliberately, a strawman intended to align your argument with the thing we're actually talking about), - buying gold that already exists, whatever form it's in, assuming the person you're buying it from already has it and doesn't have to mine it (the strawman to again align this with the original thing would be that they have to mine it -- I'm pretty sure this would be considered an investment into a mining operation), - buying an expensive car that is, bar some minor customizations, like every other car of the same model in existence and that the company has already invested in building, - real estate (just completely different from all of these, but my point was just that it's not a standard purchase and has its own structure around it. That said, there are real estate-related securities so...) Anyways, Animats seems more familiar with the specific legalities of this so I'll leave that to them. I never claimed to have a perfect understanding of US securities law, I just found your counter-example disingenuous.