> There is supposedly a game attached to Pokémon cards, but that excuse to establish "utility" is pretty flimsy
Playing the game is a game. (There are dozens of major tournaments, including national and world championships, of people playing the game.) Collecting the cards is also, in a different way, a game. They have made a product that people do things with. You are essentially trying to define all products with resale value as securities.
I am just drawing an analogy to the same BS arguments that the SEC--and the anti-crypto crowd on this forum--like to make against projects like Filecoin.
Why do you then believe that cryptocurrencies are somehow different? How about Axie Infinity, which is specifically a game similar to Pokémon cards?
Why is it somehow sufficient for Pokémon cards to say "a game is a game" but you say that for crypto and you are "shilling your shitcoin"?
Do you believe this to be different for baseball cards, which do not have a game, or for competing collectible card games which never got popular?
(After all, if you are willing to say that just wanting to collect and trade cards for purposes of making money is itself a game that establishes utility, what are you even trying to regulate in the first place? Aren't you then just making all securities into products?)
> After all, if you are willing to say that just wanting to collect and trade cards for purposes of making money is itself a game
Making money is not the reason that people collect and trade Pokemon cards, and if you think it is then your brain has been pretty badly poisoned by activities where making money is the only objective.
Playing the game is a game. (There are dozens of major tournaments, including national and world championships, of people playing the game.) Collecting the cards is also, in a different way, a game. They have made a product that people do things with. You are essentially trying to define all products with resale value as securities.