right, the only reason people do it this way is that they only care if the token is a security, not whether some application only accessible by the token is

nobody cares if some random unpausable smart contract that happens to use the token is creating securities transactions

the only people getting targeted by those powerful regulators are the centralized custodians that resell access to those smart contracts. so the Coinbases and Binances and Geminis, not the AAVE’s and ETH2 contract deployers for example

Its not even supposed to be a workaround, its just the consequences are completely fine. “hey your token is fine and can be traded everywhere, but the primary staking smart contract that happens to be linked to platform fees for the project of the same name is an unregistered securities vending machine! we’re sanctioning it and it will keep operating autonomously regardless! no, it has nothing to do with the token of the same name, why do you keep asking that”

prior token project evolutions would extend dividends to all token holders, which would introduce liability to the status of the token certainly. exchanges wouldnt even list those tokens because there would be nothing to argue to securities regulators. now its rapidly iterated to something more inconsequential and ambiguous, or just inconsequential