You’re 100% wrong on this one. No one is “challenging the definition”, merely challenging a fallacious statement written on HN which probably got the definition wrong, and step 1 is to post the definition so the statement can be debunked.

Legal terms often have idiosyncratic definitions shaped by case law, and you can’t simply use basic English understandings of terms like “common enterprise”.

Even in plain English “common enterprise” could have a variety of meanings, and sayjng “that is not a common enterprise” is super problematic.

In the case law, there is a clear precedent of hundreds of cases of having a “promoter”, and you are “depending on the efforts of others” to tout the security, and you are “in common enterprise” with that promoter EVEN IF you have never met.

If the Yu Gi Oh franchise stops doing the show, that affects your sales. See above, the actual defintion posted… and you will see that, in fact, Yu Gi Oh and Pokemon definitely has a common enterprise in the legal definition of the term

If you are so convinced, you should find a way to test your theory around Yu Gi Oh in court. Regarding crypto exchanges, we will get our answers soon enough. The majority of people, crypto still is not mainstream, is better served sticking with the existing rules and regulations. And definitions, how do I hate this J. Peterson / Ben Shapiro debate technic of never coming to the point and dragging everything down to pseudo-intelectuall pedantry.

I argued with Ben Shapiro about his "Jews in Name Only" remarks, for instance. One can always hide behind vague phrases like that – what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" – and keep changing them.

Look through my comment history -- do I strike you as someone who dances around a point, or minces words? I am telling you how it is: you seem to be uninformed on how the US legal system works. Courts can't be used as "test suites" that you can just spin up, and legal jargon isn't the same as plain english, nor is it like code that you can just test for a binary outcome.

What you're suggesting is that I waste my time petitioning the SEC to look into Yu Gi Oh or Pokemon, which operated unregistered securities schemes 20 years ago, and they had ample opportunity to look at. I would be one of hundreds of thousands of such petitioners. They would they consult their own appetite for going after them in courts, which they clearly have none for. They care about crypto, they don't care about trading cards and children's shows, pure and simple. They are exercising their discretion in who they go after.

And by the way, the actual definition that was posted above, from their official site, is what you'd call vague:

The Commission, on the other hand, does not require vertical or horizontal commonality per se, nor does it view a "common enterprise" as a distinct element of the term "investment contract."

You could see why, in the face of such vague and amorphous language, a ton of things could be considered "a common enterprise", so the assertion "Yu Gi Oh definitely doesn't have a common enterprise" is laughable. If the SEC wanted to, they'd argue that it does. The definition is extremely vague.

The pseudo-intellectual bullshit is actually when you refuse to have consistent definitions, and just drone on about various things. New-Age practitioners or post-modern feminist or other movements have done this. Requiring people to be clear and define terms that sound vague is a basic requirement in math, science, and general rational discourse.