Jump to content

ed1

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ed1

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If SEC thought XRP was used as part of unregulated securities offering, they would have already acted on it. They have the power and as we can see from this example, intent to do so on digital assets.
  2. I believe first 17 and 19 have to be merged. 17 is a class action lawsuit on the same subject matter. As to the actual trial, it may take a very long time to finish and I don't think Ripple has any hurry either. Keep in mind what the judge has suggested for case #17, that even if it turned out to be that Ripple's sales of xrp at the time were deemed securities, the actual claim for losses should be proportional to Ripple sales in the market/total market sales volume which ends up being a fraction of the amount asked. This by itself suggests that legal fees on this won't make any sense for the plaintiffs if they continue with the case.
  3. Yes of course it can be set. You need to have an entity that has deep enough pockets and that is willing to act a moderator of value in open market. So if you are fantasizing about say 100$ per xrp, US government could do that hypothetically. It would be senseless from a speculators point of view to try and speculate against XRP in a scenario like this. However Ripple or BoA etc wouldn't have the money to back it up at these extreme levels.
  4. it dampens both sides because it creates a deeper market..but since there is no net buy pressure right now, i mentioned the sell pressure part.
  5. I believe ODL actually stabilizes the XRP price to a greater extent. Because order books are operating on both sides, it dampens the sell pressure, maybe not too much but so much so that among the top 5 cryptos XRP is the one with the least amount of losses in percentage terms today.
  6. sure glad, mr. tacostand gets to sell his fair share of the scam he helped create https://bithomp.com/explorer/rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv
  7. Miners will manipulate.. Well not so much manipulate per se but reduce supply to push price up. Current hash battle makes sense because if you increase the hash rate now, you can get more for your "work" (2x more) as opposed increasing after 69 days. To a great extent miners set the price by controlling supply. hashrate increased by 2.5x since June 2019, the supply will be cut by half in 69 days. We can look at an adjusted model for 5x the price we have seen in June 2019 for BTC after the halving..of course more would be needed if hashrate keeps growing. I am assuming 50K ish price for BTC. Hopefully we can get 10K sats for XRP - 5$.
  8. I think the result is not too bad for Ripple. The securities case is not dismissed but even in case the plaintiff can eventually win the case and claim a liability, the amount that the plaintiff can claim is severely restricted which would suggest a strong incentive to settle as far as the plaintiff is concerned. From the document: "Significantly, as plaintiff pointed out at oral arguments its 129,000 XRP unit purchase during 2018 Q1, when compared to defendants sale of 0.095 percent of the XRP traded on the market that quarter, supports the inference that plaintiff purchased approximately 122 XRP units from defendant (or approximately 19 XRP units, discounting for plaintiff’s two week trading period and reasonably assuming uniform distribution of sale by defendant during that period). This conclusion is further supported by the more glaring (but largely unaddressed) issue presented by this claim—namely, to what extent may defendants be considered in privity with an exchange purchaser when a subsequent purchase qualifies as part of an issuer transaction under § 25011. In any event, at this stage in the litigation, where the court may draw reasonable inferences and the relationship between defendants, subsequent purchasers,and the exchange isunclear, the court concludes that plaintiff has adequately alleged privity in support of his § 25503 claim, though he may ultimately be unable to prove it." Also, "As a preliminary matter, plaintiff suggests that Rule 9(b) does not necessarily apply to his claims for violation of § 25401because they might sound in negligence (as opposed to fraud). Dkt. 74 at 27. Plaintiff fails to develop that potential distinction. In any event, because Rule 9(b) applies to negligent misrepresentation claims,9plaintiff’s underdeveloped suggestion to the contrary is misplaced.As a result, the court applies Rule 9(b) to plaintiff’s § 25501 and § 25504.1 claims for violation of § 25401. Here, plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards with respect to defendants’ allegedly fraudulent misstatements. "“Similarly, on or about December 21, 2017, Ripple tweeted in Japanese that XRP was now available on over 50 exchanges. That tweet linked to an article on Ripple’s website which described XRP as ‘the fastest and most scalable [digital] asset on the market.’It continued, ‘[t]he market is taking notice of XRP’s speed, reliability and scalability —which has strengthened the demand for XRP and whereit’s listed. In fact, we’re proud to announce that XRP has gone from being listed on six exchanges earlier this year to more than 50 worldwide.’The article also linked to a number of exchanges where XRP could be purchased, and stated that ‘XRP’s long-term value is determined by its utility—including its ability to help financial institutions source liquidity for payments into and out of emerging markets.’” Id.¶ 45. Here, plaintiff fails to explain how or why the above statement is false. As a result, the misstatement alleged above fails Rule 9(b)." "Various statements (mostly tweets) by defendants on specified dates concerning public interest in XRP (Compl. ¶ 63), advantages over Bitcoin (id.¶ 64), the growth and potential value of XRP (id.¶¶ 65-66), the future use of XRP by American Express, the Japan Bank Consortium, as well as other “banks and payment providers” (id.¶¶ 67, 68, 73), how XRP is more than “bank software”(id.¶ 74), a partnership with MoneyGram (id.¶¶ 102-103), defendants’ intent to develop the infrastructure necessary for banks to directly use XRP (id.¶ 102), and how XRP’s value depends upon the XRP Ledger’s use for cross-border payments as well as its adoption by enterprises (id.¶ 149).Again, plaintiff fails to explain how or whyany of the misstatements alleged in the above paragraphs are false. In their motion, defendants challenged the sufficiency of variousof these alleged misstatements. Dkt. 70 at 31. Plaintiff failed to respond to such challenges. Dkt. 74 at 27-28. As a result, the misstatements alleged at paragraphs 63-68, 70, 73-74, 102-03, and 149 all fail Rule 9(b)"
  9. Doesn't Ripple simply manage Jed's sales?
  10. Ripple IPO will have to wait until there's clarification on the securities case. I assume we can get a dismissal ruling in the next few weeks, CA has a 90 day limit if I am not mistaken, so a decision can possibly come before April. In any case, if the case is not dismissed I suppose Ripple will probably settle and get this liability out of the way. Once the settlement is done, SEC can make a statement about the current situation of XRP and highlight that it is not a security. Ripple has already stopped XRP sales since September 2019 (only OTC deals to partners in developing markets, no market sales). Then Ripple can file for an IPO in say June/July.
×
×
  • Create New...