@redk We operate and develop under legal advise of leading legal offices with experience on blockchain in US and Europe, we don’t produce internal understandings from which we seek partners. As such we do not issue public legal opinions. It is under the interest of our legal partners to be in contact and alignment with regulators and legislators so they can better serve their clients.
In the shared article it is Mr. Shapiro as a individual that issue a legal opinion, not as his clients explaining their operational decisions. It is of course understandable that the two might be correlated. On our relationship with regulators it was never appreciated such public authoritative advice and would be unwise to suppose the outcome of it.
The two points you raise aren’t as black-and-white, instead they are highly dependent on a myriad of parameters. “Truly autonomous” is not a legal definition or physical reality, protocols in general are created, maintained and dependent in operation on a core entity that formed with that goal. Including having raised capital from both private and public with the goal of extracting profit from the protocols. It is due to this reality that concepts such as “sufficient decentralization” and “temporary safe harbor” are discussed, currently those are under specified and may not hold under the legal enforcement.