they lose because they cant articulate when they are securities and when they're not securities

their theory does play into a trap you pointed out, in that there are plenty of non crypto products that function the same way - limited supply runs sold by corporate issuer where a ton of speculator collectors hope the price goes up based on the actions of the issuer - that the SEC never bothered with. Either they're all securities or none of them are. The SEC has been asked to explain the difference and fails. People on this forum played devils advocate on a supposed legal difference just because they dont like crypto, but their arbiter - the SEC - fails to find those points strong enough to argue its position at all! the courts and the senate are like “wait, you don’t have an argument at all? good lord”

but like an abusive spouse it just keeps circling over the same word salad of “you’re supposed to know what I want, its been sufficiently clear the entire time” instead of articulating themselves using their words, to the shock of the couples counselor who already had a bias towards the spouse but can’t come up with anything to help their ridiculous case

You can read the act yourself, a cryptocurrency (depending on the type) is not a security by the definition provided. Nor does the cryptographic token have an issuer. Quite literally, most crypto has none of what’s defined under the SEC scope.

That said, sure _some_ of the crypto tokens would could count as securities. But even then it’s not clear the exchanges should be the ones being targeted.

Funny, that describes virtually every cryptocurrency token I'm aware of.

But for all practical purposes, you shouldn't be looking at the definition in the law itself, you should be looking at the case law behind it, where of course the ruling test is the Howey test... "an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others."

Your interpretation is far removed from reality but I appreciate the enthusiasm

the act regulates the nature of a specific transaction and therefore does not need a description of the asset itself. It never needed to imagine crypto, or fungible orange groves as the howey test was about, or anything.