I get your point, there are legitimate legal worries - but I'm more worried about the SEC than the CIA/NSA. Terrorist are funded by bearer bonds and other financial instruments (including cash), but it isn't illegal to own them. But you will get nailed to a wall by the SEC if you try to exchange them without a license.
The NSA and CIA probably can see what we are doing anyway and already know whether or not Bitshares is a national security threat. It's not like it's being developed in a secret bunker or in a part of the world known to be a safe haven for terrorists. The idea that the CIA and NSA are going to freak out over Bitshares is kind of silly. The NSA has the resources to take Bitcoin out and the CIA has the resources to monitor the entire tiny 10-12 billion dollar industry. The CIA topples entire countries and would have no difficulty with Bitshares.
That doesn't mean delegates don't face some risks if the market cap were high enough. If it were high enough that different agencies thought it might somehow effect what they are doing then they'd start by taxing the people who cash out and if no one cashes out and the market cap reached hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars that is when risk would increase exponentially.
Intelligence agencies at this point in time do not care about the crypto asset industry. Bitcoin only has an 8 billion dollar market cap. If we are even at our most optimistic then in the next few years perhaps it might be 80-100 billion and Bitshares might by a few billion in market cap. If that is the case it still wouldn't attract the attention of intelligence agencies.
If the market cap of Bitcoin reaches 1 trillion that is when everything will change. At that point all the nations in the world will know how important it is and we'll see a battle for control over it like we see with the Internet. In the case of Bitcoin if the United States wanted to gain control over it then Intel, AMD and Apple would all start making ASICs. Overnight the United States would have control over Bitcoin because there aren't any companies in the world better at making chips or easy to use computer products that these companies.
The main risk of intelligence agencies getting involved would be by confiscation or by weird situations where hundreds of thousands of coins go missing and no one can figure out where they went. That was easy to happen when you had a centralized exchange where some hackers could rob and loot with ease but it's not easy with Bitshares.
To hack Bitshares the hackers would have to target the delegates and if the delegates have information security backgrounds it will not be anywhere near as easy as hacking a centralized exchange. Even if delegates were hacked then we'd just select new ones so the Bitshares DPoS isn't anywhere near as vulnerable as what proceeded it.
The SEC and IRS are the only true risks in my opinion. The SEC might determine to treat these virtual assets as real. In that case there would still be limits to what they could do because it would be like kind exchanges. The IRS on the other hand could tax the hell out of it and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.
If there is a legal precedent we are years away from it. That means we will be in the grey area for years before Bitcoin has a trillion dollar market cap or the congress wraps their heads around the technology enough to actually try to complain.
In the long run the legal issue isn't much of an issue at all. Distributed networks are hard to destroy just take a look at how the music and film industry did with pirating through bit torrent. First, there is a question of scale: each film or mp3 is its own small project, and the music/film industries DO take them down, but the full system -including users who reupload content- regenerates quickly. With BTSX, the goal would be for one network to operate with high reliability, gain a large market depth, be seen as reliable to average computer-users. This leads to one big/important network. If by shutting down "100 golden dpos bittorrents", it destroyed all torrenting on the internet, then the bittorrent network would be weak (and this shutdown would be carried out as often as possible). I don't think you can "start up BitUSD again", the same way someone uploads another copy of the latest Game of Thrones (and law enforcement will understand that).
Second, dpos is not really a distributed network like bittorrent or Bitcoin. With bittorrent, anyone can step up and provide a replacement data-source ("be a seeder"), and with Bitcoin mining, anyone can step up and offer replacement tx-validation ("be a hasher/miner"). I don't fully understand dpos, but I don't see how individuals 101-200 can provide a perfect "replacement" service for individuals 1-100. Certainly it will not be identical, and probably not even close, because "the second 100" will have less experience, less reputation, less originally-at-stake, less support from the disorganized/confused tx-tapos-voters, and might react to the experience of their predecessors' downfall.
Bitshares is not one blockchain to rule them all. It's actually a toolkit which anyone can use. This means it will regenerate even faster than Napster or Bittorrent. That toolkit will eventually be ported to languages other than C++ so that it can be developed in other languages.
Bitshares is actually a family brand of chains. It's a franchise. So it's designed not to ever be taken out by political attack. The key to whether or not it survives political attack will be whether or not it offers enough measurable and demonstrated utility to the establishments of different countries.
For example if Bitshares is seen only as disruptive but doesn't offer opportunities to factions within the establishment then you might be right. Napster for example was mostly disruptive at the time because it didn't have an economy model to attract investors and speculators. Bitshares could become a better Forex than Forex so if Forex traders flock to it then it's offering a lot of utility. If Bitshares offers enough utility to the movers and shakers of society then it will be politically very difficult to shut down as well.
I don't really understand the points you're even trying to make. Aren't you trying to make a prediction market which is even more legally risky than what Bitshares is doing?