IMO if the others fit this definition, Dogeparty and Counterparty would also be in violation.
1 - investment of money due to - "Burned" Bitcoins could be construed as investment of money. Just because they didn't use the money doesn't mean that others didn't invest money via the burn process to get their respective stake.
2- an expectation of profits arising from - Again, I don't think they burned their Bitcoins expecting nothing or coins of similar value in return.
3- a common enterprise - The common enterprise being Dogeparty/Counterparty
4- which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party - Dependent on the developers developing the software.
If a cryptocoin 2.0 protocol relied on some sort of crowd funding, whether it be via a more traditional-style crowdfunding or burning of cryptocurrency, there is the same end result. The difference being the projects that burned crypto just wasted money needlessly. Users invested money (burned/ICO/IPO) to get an equity in the project (common enterprise) with an expectation of profit from said projects (rise in token value), the developments of which relied on promoters/third parties (developers/organizers).
This is a slippery slope, a very slippery slope indeed. I could probably name at least 20 different projects that this could be applicable to. All of which just happen to be the most innovative cryptocurrency projects in existence, which is very sad for the sake of innovation and development of different use cases of blockchain technology other than specifically for currency. I hope that the Feds just leave these projects alone and let the industry grow and mature on its own. They will get their cut somewhere down the line one way or the other, it doesn't have to be through the SEC. The money will trickle down to them into their pockets eventually.
Basically the question is whether it is possible to Invest in something by destroying the value. We don't have an answer to this, my belief is no and you may be right, it may be construed as investment because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the feds are going to treat it like a
duck analog Either way it seems clear to me Invictus is under the gun on this one, we'll have to wait and see on Dogeparty. LTBcoin is pretty straightforward and there was no IPO or burn, with distribution based on contribution it shouldn't fall under this but just like with Dogeparty if you get broad enough with your interpretation anything is possible.
It's funny how some people seem to think I take some sort of pleasure in this, I don't. I'm just trying to keep people focused on reality at least a little since its easy to let what you wish reality to be dictate what you believe will happen. Focus on the reality for Bitshares, why does it matter what happens to anybody else? It's obvious deflecting.
PS: Guys, lets be nice to Adam. LTB and its subsidiaries have done a lot of good press for Bitshares and we don't want to burn that bridge. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
They can't be nice to me because I question what they wish to be true and I don't have time to beat around the bush when I see a problem or have a question. They don't want to answer the question, they want it to stop being asked.
The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
Like you said, I actually do some important work for Bitshares in addition to my commenting and provide a platform along with access to the LTB community many of whom after which joined the I3 community. Given that I could stop all that and invest my time and money elsewhere, If they're willing to attack my questions, what kind of user wouldn't they be willing to attack?