Jump to content

Undershoes

Member
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Undershoes

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. There are mods on the /ripple sub that are great - and there are mods that are petty, bitter overlords.
  3. OK, thank you! Do you happen to know if it was dismissed with prejudice?
  4. Yep. And that news source (xrpripplenews) is not reputable.
  5. So that tweet seems to be an error. That image does not indicate it was dismissed.
  6. 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.
  7. None of that is new evidence. They are the same arguments, rehashed.
  8. Most recent update - the last before meeting in court Jan 15: https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-files-last-bid-to-dismiss-xrp-securities-lawsuit-before-court-meeting TLDR; Ripple re-asserts that the time to claim Ripple is responsible for selling a security has indeed past, and the plaintiffs argument that it is an ongoing sale is incorrect (citing recent precedent). A few new points about Ripple not being the source of the sale.
  9. Can someone help me understand what this is significant? Thanks -
  10. Ah man, total fail on my part. Sorry. I'll delete that post, thanks for clarifying.
  11. Ah thank you. I didnt get a notification for that filing.
  12. @Hodor Leave pass denied. Oh man. The honest response is to say this is a huge discouragement. There really arent any other voices as clear as yours in this space. You contributed so much, so well. This feels like a death in the community. I know you said you will still be around - but your blog man... it was our voice. #gutshot Edit: October fools, right?
  13. "technological dead end" - shots fired! I really enjoy you, David. You do great work and communicate well. Thanks - I wish you the best. Edit: From a product point of view, I really like the idea of robust auditing. Given the complexity of features offered by XRP, the need for log compliance, a demand for "tier 0" SIEM integration , actionable log workflows, forensics, etc - clients certainly will appreciate attention here.
  14. In a spirited, highly opinionated forum it is unreasonable to have reaction icons - but lack a "disagreement" icon. We can "like" "Thank you" or "confused". But no "disagree". No matter what side you fall on in the discussion this has certainly bothered you. If the design is to have a voice with them at all, we should not be so strangely limited. It should be well rounded or not at all. Mods, admins, your honor, whoever - please add a "disagree" icon.
×
×
  • Create New...