Jump to content

Undershoes

Member
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Undershoes's Achievements

  1. Anyone know what the order was that was filed today?
  2. Is it possible to get an invite to this forum? Both OP and you are pointing out my frustration. I'm not getting any real content or news from XRPchat (or the /ripple or /xrp subs). If its invite-only, can folks request one?
  3. This is an outright lie. Hodor said the opposite, that he was more optimistic than he ever had been and that he was not leaving either XRP or the community. He did leave the persona of "Hodor" behind - but he is still here. I assume you know this, but for the sake of other readers, this comment is a complete troll-fabrication.
  4. I really cant wait for the tide to turn. And it will. The FUD'ers and BitterBoys have created an echo chamber that needs to die. I've been invested since 2017. If you think the development of use cases and rails is somehow failing - or want to imply that Ripple isnt building an XRP ecosystem with tons of real companies - you simply arent paying attention.
  5. So really you just wanted to shitpost. Cool. I do appreciate the link to the filing though, that part was helpful. It is curious to me that one file in the docket is named "motion to dismiss" while this one was only named "dismiss". If this is the sum of the plaintiffs argument, they have no standing.
  6. There is a new document in the docket that was posted today labeled "Dismiss" (at least by Court Listener). It's not free/open. Does anyone have info on this update? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8150354/zakinov-v-ripple-labs-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Thanks!
  7. How reasonable is it to consider the possibility that Ripple's IPO move was coordinated with the SEC to accommodate a documented "stamp of approval" related to the securities question? Perhaps a statement in the IPO approval (if that exists?) stating or inferring a review has shown no issues with existing regulations (or in a best case scenario, more direct than that). I'm not sure how the SEC works with the IPO process, or if there is opportunity for that language. But given that we know Ripple has worked with the SEC on this issue extensively, would it be possible that both parties saw this as a viable solution to the legal limbo? Or at least one that gives Ripple a strong case legally? This may have been discussed elsewhere. If it has been in detail, I apologize.
  8. There are mods on the /ripple sub that are great - and there are mods that are petty, bitter overlords.
  9. OK, thank you! Do you happen to know if it was dismissed with prejudice?
  10. Yep. And that news source (xrpripplenews) is not reputable.
  11. So that tweet seems to be an error. That image does not indicate it was dismissed.
  12. There are several sources for this, but I'm too lazy atm to look them up. The court date set as a hearing for existing petitions (such as Ripple's petition to dismiss) is today, Jan 15.
  13. None of that is new evidence. They are the same arguments, rehashed.
×
×
  • 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.