“reasonably expect”, in law, imposes an “objective” standard; the mere subjective expectation of a buyer won't meet it, the court applying the test will need to find that the expectation was objectively justified in the concrete circumstances that existed. It's a much higher bar than merely did any individual buyer have a subjective expectation of profit.
If the coin has a mechanism where it can always be bought for $1 forever it's reasonable that you can't expect a profit.
But ICOs don't do this. They limit quantity to drive demand of people hoping their limited resource will be worth more in the future.
They are certainly not shares. But could you turn such a token into an investment opportunity? Certainly you could.
The stunning reality is that Blockchain technology makes practically everything a security. SEC's wet dream.
It's probably why, on some level, all coupons carry the disclaimer that they have no (or nominal) cash value, and are void if tranferred.
For your tacos to be securities, the company would have to be working in some capacity to give those tacos more value in the future. Since tacos expire, all reasonable taco investors know that their investment will go to $0 in the near future, therefore no expectation of profit.
It's amazing how broadly security is defined and enforced. The only examples I was able to discuss with the SEC that were not securities were when the asset being sold could not reasonably generate a profit and could not be transferred. Basically like selling a product or accepting a donation.
There is also securities case law where a company sold a security to a single person or very few people and they were sued successfully.