Jump to content

kanaas

Silver Member
  • Content Count

    3,398
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    10

kanaas last won the day on April 14 2017

kanaas had the most liked content!

About kanaas

  • Rank
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    S

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not disclosing makes not so much difference to be viewed as a security I guess. It's the nature of the asset and its usage to fund operations. That's what it makes looking like a security. The NDA's indeed made it a lot worser because THAT was against the "basics of public offering" with assets that are at the same time in reach and to be traded/invested by the broader public. I even think that they saw this coming somehow and have been anticipating with those fluff XRP markets reports to give the impression of a certain openness about XRP sales. We all know better now....
  2. TBH isn't this what XRP always did complain about? As a small investor you know nothing about deals, plans, whatever... At least you wanna know when and how your investment becomes diluted and/or under price pressure caused by large holders or the premier issuer. NDA's shouldn't be build around funding by XRP....
  3. AFAIK this will only be the case for the XRP that Ripple and/or their execs sell. Not for any other XRP that's already circulating. To my understanding, SEC may not force Ripple to burn any of its assets (do they even have that legal right?) IDNY about US laws but a measure the judge could take is the allowance for the SEC to confiscate those XRP that were unlawfully sold. What even might be the best outcome for Ripple (they have more XRP than cash). Then the SEC can sell those XRP themselves as unregistered securities, after all, as has been told, they already are running a validato
  4. Agree with most of what you write, but at least they could have been more open about their XRP sales. The “XRP reports” are nothing more than fluff and are far from what real reports should look like. After all, such reports, if not made by the official filing documents, would not admit that XRP is a security, but it would have avoided accusations of disparate information for the tiny XRP investor. After all, it has always been something the XRP community has been asking for. To be fair, as an XRP investor, do you think it fair that Ripple and insiders like Brad and Chris are secretly bringing
  5. Actually there's not so much to add to present rules. I even doubt if there is need for a new law to say that every ICO has to be reported a an unregistered security and that the only way to bring it into the market - legally - has to be by accredited investors and that once it's on the market it's just a tradable digital asset.... Do one need a new law when all this is available by SEC rule 501 under regulation D ? Why kept the SEC silence all the time? Why did it take 8 years to dig it up from under their own thick layer of dust? Just asking for my friends at the SEC....
  6. This also goes PERFECTLY in line with other jurisdictions (UK, Japan, Europe, ....) not seeing XRP as a security because Ripple is an American company and their sales have to go by US laws. If they were Japanese there might have been the same problem over there. It's not the nature of the asset that defines it as a security, it's the nature of the initial (first time) SALES as a funding vehicle that makes it, temporally and only for that first sale, an unregistered security. Makes a lot of sense to me....
  7. As a SEC chair she always must have known about rule 501 under regulation D. Ripple always had the option to sell XRP under exemption as an unregistered security to accredited investors. But ... they opted for doing business behind the curtains.... NDA's you know. When you carefully read the SEC allegations they do not say that XRP is a security. At least not all XRP and for sure not those in your or my wallet. What the allegation says is that Ripple SOLD XRP AS a security. And as a private company they were allowed .... IF they did proper reporting of those sales. Brad and the "Ripple Legal D
  8. Very informative video... Like I've always been saying (and many other XRP holders as well): it was the lack of reporting that was the big mistake Ripple and its leaders made. Every XRP holder should watch this video - completely in line with what I've always been thinking (every second is interesting, but related to XRP this link starts around 9:50) Don't blame the SEC as they are just doing their job and at the end I even think you might be glad for what Clayton did there ....
  9. At the time, he didn't sell. In fact, the allegation that the SEC makes is that Ripple and Brad / Chris sold XRP while still affiliated with or part of the company. They do this in public markets, with whole sales to (potential) customers, or as buying options... while NOT properly informing the public, creating unfair and unequal information situations (something the XRP community has always complained about). Jed was never involved in this type of operation. You could even say that he was the only one who honestly reported on his planned sales
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.