Jump to content

cmbartley

Silver Member
  • Posts

    2,313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

cmbartley last won the day on December 9 2017

cmbartley had the most liked content!

About cmbartley

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

cmbartley's Achievements

  1. I have no idea but Ripple keeps saying its sales were less than 1% of global volume but that doesn't mean they sold less than 1% daily, this is likely reported for a given trading period. Meaning their sales could have constituted a much larger % on news days and 0% of volumes on other days. When they sold matters. It became a joke on XRP Chat that good news always seemed to lead to a drop in price, maybe it wasn't a coincidence. Not to mention that Ripple doesn't report what percentage of volume sales from BG, CL, and other Ripple employees constituted.
  2. If I had meant "requirement" I would have used that word is all. The point was that there's an objective way to demonstrate the utility oil but no objective way to demonstrate the stated utility of XRP other than businesses buying it and saying it works or them opening up their accounting ledgers. We were told by Ripple that it was useful and now we find that, absent massive discounts, it may not have been. I'm curious whether it would have been useful for Bitso in the absence of discounts. Maybe Ripple has all sort of evidence that companies were using it successfully or that many banks wanted to but couldn't because of lack of regulatory clarity, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm not being hard on Ripple because I want XRP to fail. I was a huge fan and still think that XRPL are awesome. I personally like the Ripple employees/founders that I've met. I understand that startups are hard, especially when you're trying to change the world. So it was reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them fly a bit fast and loose in pursuit of the near impossible. But it's been 8 years. My argument against anti-XRPers was that Ripple's theory hadn't yet been tested but that xRapid would be that test. The SEC is now alleging that even xRapid was useless. Ripple now has the opportunity to dispute that with facts and prove their case in court. At least XRP holders will get the information and clarity they've wanted for so long.
  3. There's a big difference between profit and revenue. Facebook and Amazon may not have made profit, but their revenues were growing hand over fist.
  4. Remeber that Ripple was selling into good news; and likely BG, CL, and RippleWorks were too.
  5. Will look at this more carefully later but this is already problematic: "3. There is no reasonable expectation of profits by XRP purchasers based on the efforts of Ripple." Thousands of posts on XRP Chat and twitter say otherwise.
  6. No. This case isn't about the deployment of DLT. This is about whether the sale of XRP by Ripple, BG, and CL was in fact a securities offering. When you buy a combustion engine, you buy it for use it with the presumption that it will lose value. The SEC claims that purchasers bought XRP speculatively with an expectation that Ripple's efforts would increase the price. They make no claims about having the jurisdiction to regulate DLT writ large. One of the most the most cutting conclusions from the report is that no one bought XRP at market rates for use. Those who bought it at a discount bought it to resell to make the spread. Can we point to anyone who actually bought XRP for use? Given the SEC's purported 100% win rate recently I would be very slow to presume this will be a slam dunk for Ripple.
  7. Never said it was a requirement. This was simply a direct response to that inadequate argument for XRP is not a security. Obviously, which is why it's likely headed to court. But so far I have still have yet to see any good arguments why, based on the SECs complaint, it is not a security. People need to start responding directly to paragraphs in the SEC complaint rather than throwing out red herrings. The fact that many are concerned that the failure of a single company would doom the asset is evidence that holders are engaged in a common enterprise captained by Ripple. There's no single business that could fail that would affect Bitcoin or Ethereum. This community should be making steel man rather than straw man arguments. Did ANYONE actually buy XRP at market rates for use? Bitso? Or were they heavily incentivized too?
  8. Sure, but you can't expect tmthe SEC To sit idly by while a company blatantly violates their rules can you?
  9. It's a security because people will purchase based on the belief that SA will make it useful and drive up the price. Purchasers will rely on the business activity of SA to realize a profit. Moreover, unlike XRP you can use chemistry to prove the utility of oil. There is no science that can demonstrate the utility of XRP, only models. And models are often wrong.
  10. Agree with much of this, but I don't think Ripple should burn their XRP. It should be taken out of their control and used to productively promote the health of the network. I still think validators should be compensated using some of the unissued (escrowed) XRP. And perhaps a scheme should be put in place to redirect transaction fees to validators. A foundation could think about how else to use the funds and perhaps a voting scheme could be implemented using the IOU feature of XRPL. Lots of possibilities but Ripple needs to eliminate its stack (probably down to 5B or less). Ripple also needs to give up commit access to rippled on github and stop issuing a UNL. The SEC will require some disgorgement, and that might be fair. The developer network is sufficiently strong that I think XRPL might be able to carry on without Ripple. It might be the best thing for the network at the end of the day. Anyone who has used XRPL knows it is superior for payments and a number of other transaction types. Would be a shame for it to die just because a company doesn't want to give up control.
  11. Yes, selective, but I'm struggling to identify how Ripple can rebut the charge that their sales of XRP were securities. And I haven't seen anyone else offer a fulsome defense either. I agree that if the SEC had really felt this way, they should have moved earlier though. Ethereum was clearly a security given that they had an ICO for the purpose of building a nonexistent network. One difference is that initial distribution has ended—Ripple continues to sell. So again, we have the size of Ripple's XRP treasury at the heart of the problem. So the SEC reasonably says that the sale of securities is ongoing and XRP STILL does not have a use. It is still being sold as a speculative asset where purchasers are wholly dependent upon the business activities of Ripple Labs yet have no right to information about Ripple's business practices. People on this forum have been trying to pry information from Ripple for years which indicate at least that: 1) purchasers of XRP understood (at least implicitly) that the price of XRP was/is dependent on Ripple and 2) that had XRP holders had access to the type information available to purchasers of securities, that may have changed their investment strategy.
  12. Not sure how authentic this account is as it was only established Nov. 21, but the points made in the comment are worth considering. Securities come with a degree of transparency that allows the investor to more accurately assess risk. As the majority holder of XRP, a reasonable investor would conclude that the price of XRP is disproportionately influenced by Ripple's activities (this is the SEC's contention and they will likely need to demonstrate that this is the case in court—expect xrpchat threads etc. to introduced as evidence). If XRP had been classified as a security, XRP purchasers would have had access to Ripple corporate information that may have changed their assessment of risk and their investment decisions.
  13. This is misdirection. The SEC doesn't need to prove fraud, they simply have to demonstrate that the defendants engaged in the sale of an unregistered security.
  14. Ripple's XRP holdings have always been an existential threat. Many have been saying this for a long time. Despite any rhetorical gymnastics, the growth of XRPL and the price of XRP will be dependent on Ripple as long as they have the biggest stack. While most holders of XRP know full and well that holding XRP does not entitle one to Ripple equity or revenue share, most holders also know that the price of XRP is dependent (in large part) on the business activities of Ripple. So the SEC argues that sales of XRP are de facto securities based on the expectations of holders and public statements made by Ripple/Garlinghouse/Larsen. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. Much of this may have been avoided if Ripple had never been a majority of XRP. It's a bit sad really, the tech is so awesome. Years ago I said on here I'd be happy to see the price stay flat if it meant the success of IoV. Still feel that way.
×
×
  • 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.