I don't think 'refer to existing objects' is the meaningful bit, here. You can print and sell and trade and auction baseball cards of players that don't exist, and they'll still be regulated the same way as baseball cards of players who do. (Which is to say, not at all.)
I think the meaningful bit is whether or not an NFT is a baseball card, or ownership of... Some yet to be generated value, somehow derived from a baseball card.
The latter is obviously a security, the former is, to my layman eyes, probably not.
Continuing on this train of thought, it should be worth noting that useless things (Ownership of a baseball cards) are not regulated, but useful things (Ownership of a stake in the value generated by a baseball card) are regulated.
It makes sense, in a perverse way - if someone wants to spend their money on a useless thing, that's on them. If someone wants to spend their money on a useful thing, then, well, the buyer should expect some assurance that they are not being completely lied to and swindled. (Which is why the SEC regulates securities markets, and not art auctions.)
I think the meaningful bit is whether or not an NFT is a baseball card, or ownership of... Some yet to be generated value, somehow derived from a baseball card.
The latter is obviously a security, the former is, to my layman eyes, probably not.
Continuing on this train of thought, it should be worth noting that useless things (Ownership of a baseball cards) are not regulated, but useful things (Ownership of a stake in the value generated by a baseball card) are regulated.
It makes sense, in a perverse way - if someone wants to spend their money on a useless thing, that's on them. If someone wants to spend their money on a useful thing, then, well, the buyer should expect some assurance that they are not being completely lied to and swindled. (Which is why the SEC regulates securities markets, and not art auctions.)