On further consideration and although I said I would not - I am uncomfortably compelled to address your last two assertions as they may give a false sense of security.
This statement that level of decentralisation does not matter is clearly false IF you take the SEC at their word as you appear to be doing. The SEC has repeatedly been on record stating that it considers how decentralised the project is to be of the utmost importance (see link below).
Also arguably false. From the subjectively titled “SEC’s Clayton: Use of a token can evolve toward or away from being a security”
Our analysis is based on two key questions inherent in the flexible test that demarcates SEC jurisdiction over investment contracts, the Howey test. Those two questions boil down to:
Is the token valuable primarily as an investment or as a useful item?
Is there an issuer backing up that value or is the value the result of a
network of unaffiliated participants in an industry and market?
Bitcoin is the most widely used token. It’s a tool for making payments on the internet and there are hundreds-of-thousands of transactions each day. Bitcoin is also the most decentralized token, there is no issuer backing up its value, and purchasers (to the extent they rely on anyone at all) are relying on thousands of unaffiliated individuals, among them miners, exchanges, market participants, and software developers.
Safecoin will without doubt be a “useful item”, but is MaidSafeCoin a token valuable primarily as an investment? Only the SEC can tell us when it gets around to clarifying things in it’s yet-to-be-released regulations and until then it is a risk that I have been arguing should be hedged in the most positive way that also brings future benefits to the project.
At this point the whole discussion should probably be moved elsewhere, it grown out of What’s up today material…