> That's a very D&D Rulebook type interpretation :). Not that rulings should be ambiguous, but usually some common sense can be applied (and is expected to be reasonably applied).
You can't build a business on assumptions made on an ambiguous ruling. And while common sense seems reasonable there it has no definition. Why should investors take the risk?
Lots of businesses, investor-backed and otherwise, currently operate within the “frontier areas” of the law. Some of them step a little too far and get whacked, others stay in the gray area for decades making money. Legal due diligence is not about guaranteeing 100% you’re above board. It’s about weighing the risks.
You can't build a business on assumptions made on an ambiguous ruling. And while common sense seems reasonable there it has no definition. Why should investors take the risk?