lll_lll

There is already a class action against Ripple so I don’t believe that is the strategy. It strengthens the class action already pending in CA courts. Also the purpose of the details of BG and CL is the civil case against them individually for their personal sales.

My argument for “demand” didn’t have to do anything with what Ripple did or was doing. By demanding and getting Ripple to agree only strengthen XRP as security argument.

I get it to a point that Ripple is an important member of the XRP Community and has some corporate responsibility towards its members, albeit, however, nebulous the term might be. It should be voluntary and through social pressure.

Thanks for changing the title.

Wrong, settlement can happen anytime before the court decides the case. In a charging statement that is as aggressive as the one bought by SEC, the intent is to scare you into settlement, quickly.

Are you Ripple’s Shareholder? If not you have no right to “demand” anything from Ripple as of right now. I have dual degrees in Accounting and Economics. I have Masters in Business Administration and Information Technology and I am a CPA. Your point?

This. If your demands are met, ironically, it would make XRP a security.

We will probably never know answer to this.

I’m not a lawyer per say but just understand business law because of my vocation. Ok, think about it this way: If a corporation is charged criminally, the corporation is shut down and the officers don’t go to jail but if the executives are charged separately criminally along with corporation, in addition to Corporation shutting down, the executive go to jail. This, however, is not a criminal suit but a civil one. Just wanted to show you the personal and corporate liability. In US law, corporation is a US person.

Personally liability is not the same as liability for the corporation. In the suit, Brad and Chris were personally charged with their personal sales apart from sales by Ripple. The settlement in this instance would come from their personal bank account and not Ripple, which, I assume like all corporations have liability protection insurance for their Officers and Directors. In this light, it is even more amazing that they didn’t wish to settle and have open themselves up for a huge financial risk.

So the effect of this will be the US persons are selling all their XRP now for the fear of not being able to cash out and people on abroad are buying them. When and if XRP is declared not security, price will shoot up and exchanges will be behind the curve to open up trading. Net effect: much less holding of XRP in US. That’s SEC going to bat for Americans and American innovation. Go figure.

You understood it wrong. They were going to bring the case against Ripple but offered to settle individually with Brad and Chris. Although it would have gotten then off the hook personally they didn’t take the settlement. They were the Captains that were willing to go down with the ship.

This is the second worst idea I’ve heard in recent days about how to move forward in light of the lawsuit.

That’s your opinion not Ripple’s or mine. Each of us has to make our own judgement. Can you link where Ripple said “...no slippage...small transfers already”? Also, I again suggest changing the title as it’s not accurate.

We have known this for a while and if you followed Ripple or Moneygram at all, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Hell, there have been articles written and MG has openly discussed this in their earnings call. ODL has to be subsidized until there is enough liquidity and enough participation my Market makers so that spreads are low enough for it to be profitable. When your business relies on network effect, you have to incentivize early adopters. This is no different than what PayPal or Visa did early on. No surprises here.