Fair enough on the voting rights. We will see what the ‘final’ verdict will be.
However the Iphone example is not valid. The iphone is not sold by apple with the main promise being that you can later sell it on an exchange. It is a useful product that most people will not buy with the expectation to sell it later at a higher price. It also usually trades at a lower price later so that expectation would be irrational. Token however currently are ICOd with some (better or worse, depending on the project) use proposition in a later implementation of the project, but mostly carrying the promise to be tradeable on multiple exchanges (note I mean mostly ERC20 Token, not platforms). Ie someone sells them to you mostly on that promise and with little to no inherent value not dependent on the success of the start up in question. Note that the iphone still has use-value without Apple being there, as do most kick starter products. This is what makes these kinds of token clear securities in the view of the SEC in my own personal opinion. Thanks for the comment.