I'm probably not exactly reading the terms precisely how Congress intended or how any particular SEC agent or court might but the advertising and messaging all seems very different from anything in crypto outside of NFTs. There's no pitch of using these sneakers to make transactions, or a "sneaker savings account". The "be one of the only people to get this thing" core principle seems distinct. Yes, there's a resale market for that thing - first sale doctrine basically means they COULDN'T try to remove that, ya? - but how much is that their "fault" per se? To me this fails (2) or (3) for shoes (or Pokemon cards or what have you).
E.g. if we interpreted the test like that, wouldn't we end up with nearly any "limited run" product being a security? And that's never how the law has been interpreted or enforced, and certainly can't have been the intention.
So I'm unconvinced by the lay reading of the law of folks saying "this makes sneakers a security too" since it seems no more valid than a lay reading that doesn't and there's been no official indication that sneakers or trading cards are getting anything like the attention crypto did from regulators, despite being much older markets.
E.g. if we interpreted the test like that, wouldn't we end up with nearly any "limited run" product being a security? And that's never how the law has been interpreted or enforced, and certainly can't have been the intention.
So I'm unconvinced by the lay reading of the law of folks saying "this makes sneakers a security too" since it seems no more valid than a lay reading that doesn't and there's been no official indication that sneakers or trading cards are getting anything like the attention crypto did from regulators, despite being much older markets.