If it wasn't for the Signing of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 you would not even be using this language. Security means alarm systems, antivirus, etc. Fuck this other meaning brought in by old farts that never even saw a computer in their whole life. That shit is not applicable at all to cryptocurrencies.
I can use all your arguments against you. Bitcoin was pre-mined by Satoshi because he was the only one dominating the hashrate and hence he could mine over a million BTC in record time. That's 4.76% of the total BTC supply. Meanwhile the ETH foundation holds just 0.3% of all ETH in circulation. That's 3x less than Saylor's percentage of BTC and almost 16x less than Satoshi. Talk about being decentralized - WOW! Once the masses find out this secret along with the fact that it gives yield and is sometimes deflationary they should jump on it! LOL - who am I kidding. They will follow the FUD until the narrative changes.
The SEC's job is to protect investors. That's it. ETH is not a security at all. The "profit on the work of others" does not apply to stakers. And I can throw that argument at you and Saylor as well. You're doing nothing to develop Bitcoin, you're not maintaining it, you're not mining it. You expect the price to go up so you can profit (based on the work of others). See, I did it! I summed your shit up perfectly! 
I think you are really confusing concepts here Obsidian. (Can I suggest maybe watching a few less youtube videos, and actually doing some legal research).
The term "securities" as it applies to the law the SEC enforces, has nothing to do with IT security. Rather is has to do with laws that govern fungible and publicly tradable financial instruments.
You are also misunderstanding what the role of the SEC is. It is not "to protect investors". Indeed, investors can, and do, make bad investments every day with SEC compliant securities. The SEC makes no decision on the merit of any investment. More accurate would be to say that the SEC's role is to regulate securities markets, as it is required by law to do, (and that this in turn, hopefully, will "protect" investors, to the extent that certain the many aspects of securities' laws need to be complied with). So, the SEC could not care less if BTC goes up or down. But it cares deeply, if you were to attempt to list any security in an unregulated matter (as occurred with almost all crypto tokens). Its not a matter of whether you like the law or not - the law is the law and the SEC enforces.
So, you don't need to make any argument against me. I am just telling you what the law is.
As for BTC being "pre-mined", it wasn't. All of us, Satoshi included, had to put in equal work to mine Sats. That was the case from day #1 of the code going public. And that differs from ETH any many others, whereby the creators of what was essentially a tech company, raised funds for their "projects" (businesses), by issuing tradable "tokens" (shares) and retaining a share of these shares for themselves, selling on the market for for BTC or fait over time.
With BTC, the work is done by the miners. They have converted energy into Sats. And those Sats can the be bought and traded by others. And this was the case from day #1. No security here - rather a digital commodity.
As for your comments about staking and deflationary etc, all this is a scam. If I sell you a piece of shit, and then tell you its "good value" because in a few days I will give you a brand new more of a turd for free, that does not change the fact that the underlying thing you have is a piece of shit. Similarly, if I told you that that piece of shit was going to gradually decompose, and become a small piece of shit over time... it doesn't matter - its still a piece of shit! Its really a very obvious marketing illusion.
Eth, can and will, be replaced any an infinite number of "alts" to Eth. However, there is not any "alt" to BTC - there can't be, as BTC cannot be recreated, nor can it be uncreated. It takes a while for people to truly understand, but eventually they do...
