It fails on points 2 and 4.

If you disagree with this analysis, maybe you can show how this is (or is not) different to, say, Axie Infinity (a crypto company even I actually do feel is a security under this test--with centralized servers managing centrally minted NFTs--and which is very similar in nature to Pokémon as it is clearly a rip-off of their IP) or (to take a more standard example) Filecoin (one which the SEC claims is a security in their lawsuit against Coinbase)?

Axie Infinity might run afoul of the Howrey test because of deliberate design decisions in the game which make it nothing like Pokemon: the ability to cash-out in-game currency, and the ability to loan out axies to other players and make money from their in-game efforts. Unlike Pokemon cards, which can be loaned out by players without any involvement from the company printing the cards, loaning out axies and earning money from other players' playing required the active involvement of the company behind the game. Moreover, making money (and especially making money pyramid-style from loaning out your axies to other players) was marketed as the primary selling point for the game for over a year, in contrast to Pokemon and baseball cards where the printing companies have never made claims about the value of the cards or the putative income that could be derived from engaging in a career trading them.

There's no common enterprise for ordinary collectibles. A truly analogous situation would be if pokemon represented a share in the pokemon company where you could participate in the profits derived from pokemon merchandising or something like that.

If you are willing to admit that there are "utility" to these cards, then what makes them different from cryptocurrency projects that do the same? If the game weren't so popular--maybe it is one of the numerous card games we wouldn't quickly be able to name that are all rip-offs of the concept, but didn't have the juicy IP of Pokémon--would you then suddenly consider it a security?

Magic is being held up by the early cards having been driven up in price by millennial and young gen x players who became adults with real incomes and social lives that revolved around the game. WoC manipulates the market as much as it can manage, trying to maintain the hope that one can strike it rich, but they make their money off the new cards, not the used ones.

It's the same thing that happened with comic books and baseball cards: people who bought baseball cards in the 50s and early/mid-60s found themselves with small fortunes, because there were wealthy nostalgic baby boomers to sell to. People bought baseball cards in the 80s and 90s trying to cargo cult the price increases of those classic cards, and the people who printed baseball cards played into that. That doesn't make baseball cards a type of security where one is investing in the growth in the community that buys baseball cards any more than buying a washing machine makes you an investor in the growth of the community that buys washing machines, although washing machines also have a resale value.

Buying crypto gives you nothing but a line in the distributed accounts of the people who are coining crypto. It's nothing but an obligation. There's not even the token value that a 10 cent stock certificate might provide.

Much like if they had talked about an age limit on purchasing them, it would be related to cigarettes or alcohol (in the US).

Boring?! That's very subjective, don't you think? It's 'boring' in the sense that chess is boring.

There's an entire market around the cards, yes. You don't _need_ that if you just want to play and have fun, but people will try to min max everything. I used to play with borrowed decks since I figured out as a teen that building decks out of booster packs was far beyond what I was willing to spend.

For older cards though I disagree that the the pokemon company can just reprint more any time they want and dilute the value. The most valuable card out there is the original first edition Charizard from the 90s. They can never really reprint this card and have it be treated in the exact same way. And they do regularly "remaster" or reprint the original set from the 90s in order to cash in on the nostalgic 30-somethings who now have a disposable income (I believe there is another one coming later this year). But these are just replicas and not the "real" thing. Kind of like an original antique/book/currency/artifact vs a replica.

However I'd say at least 50% of the cards in any printed set are not useful in gameplay if you are actually trying to build as competitive a deck as possible, and are really only good for collecting a complete set. They will also print "alternate artworks" of common cards which are the exact same gameplay-wise but visually different and artificially much rarer.

Yes, if you ignore the primary reason for Pokemon cards (the game), then they can magically be made to look like securities....

They then sell these things to people who are absolutely buying them with the expectation that they will go up in value.

No, completely false and this betrays a complete lack of understanding of why people buy collectibles. People buy collectibles to collect them; the value is in possessing the collectible; rare collectibles have value because it is harder to acquire them to add to one's collection.

With respect to baseball cards: they are collectibles. They have value because people collect them. To keep. They don't represent an interest in a common for-profit enterprise, and they don't derive their value from the efforts of others. The value of a card is derived from the card itself: the quality of the print, the rarity of the card in its respective printing run, and (most importantly) its physical condition. Popular players' cards are usually more valuable because more people want to own the card, not because owning the card will somehow make you more money from that player's efforts. (I still have a few baseball cards from when I was a kid. My Ken Griffey Jr card is worth about a penny because it is not in good condition; my mint Tim Belcher card is worth $1.35 because I never had a reason to look at it. But even though nobody knows who he is outside of hardcore Dodgers fans, some people out there still want to have a complete Dodgers lineup from the 1987.)

And this is why analogies to collectibles always fail for crypto bros: collectibles have value in themselves, but crypto only has value to the extent it might represent something else.