Jump to content

cmbartley

Silver Member
  • Content Count

    2,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

cmbartley last won the day on December 9 2017

cmbartley had the most liked content!

About cmbartley

  • Rank
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Many of you will recognize a familiar face on the article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/technology/bitcoin-passwords-wallets-fortunes.html
  2. I agree, this was a very delayed response. But we also don't know what the negotiations were like. Ripple said they tried to settle and part of the delay could have been due to protracted settlement discussions that ultimately fell apart. I'm not saying the SEC will definitely succeed, but it's not clear to me at all that Ripple will either.
  3. I don't think many on here are disputing what you have to say. To play devil's advocate, the SEC may simply argue that their mandate is to protect investors. Even if investors understood that buying XRP did not give claims to equity and that Ripple would sell tons of XRP, if Ripple had Offered sales of XRP as a security purchasers of XRP would have had a right to the same types of information as purchasers of typical securities. By not Offering XRP as a security, Ripple denied XRP investors of crucial information that would have allowed them to make better informed investment decisions.
  4. That Ripple owns the majority of XRP does not make selling it a security any more than the post-office holding most stamps makes selling stamps a security offering. The issue is, however, whether Ripple's "offering" of XRP constitutes "an investment of money", in a "common enterprise", with "the expectation of profit", based upon the "efforts" of Ripple. It's a question of whether "the Offering" is a security not whether XRPL code (time XRP) is itself a security. The amount of XRP Ripple holds is problematic because of the influence that their sales, marketing, and general distribution o
  5. There are productive ways that Ripple's stack of XRP could be put to use to grow XRPL if it were out of Ripple's control.
  6. I haven't but I will check it out when I have time. I found that case here: https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/36201/xrp-the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same
  7. This is purported to be relevant case law: https://casetext.com/case/silver-hills-country-club-v-sobieski
  8. https://www.google.com/amp/s/prestonbyrne.com/2018/09/20/for-the-last-time-ripple-created-xrp/amp/
  9. My understanding is that the sale of ETH was considered an investment contract at the time or origin, but that is no longer the case. What would have to happen for Ripple to cross that chasm? Giving up control of XRPL and the majority of their stack of XRP might be two components of that transition.
  10. Just keep in kind that this is not reporting. This was written by a "contributor".
  11. No idea what the outcome will be, but I don't think it's the job of individuals to protect a multi-billion dollar company. They can defend themselves. Ripple has enjoyed enormous support from XRP holders for years. As a holder of XRP you should be laser focused on how this lawsuit and its potential outcomes might affect your holdings and the network. I think it's reasonable for people to try to analyze the situation as dispassionately as possible so they can make a reasoned decision. One question that just came to mind is, how long can Ripple last as a corporation if they are prevented f
  12. In rereading the SEC complaint I think the critical point is that the SEC is not claiming that XRP is a security. The SEC claims that "the Offering" of XRP by Ripple was a security. The stamp analogy doesn't work because the post office isn't promoting stamps as a speculative asset whose price rests upon the managerial efforts of the post office. The SEC claims that Ripple offered XRP as a speculative asset that would rise in value based upon Ripple's managerial efforts, i.e. to find a "use". The SEC complaint doesn't charge that it is illegal for Ripple to offer XRP as a security, but rather
  13. The commonality defense may have some legs but Ripple may have a hard time arguing against broad vertical commonality. "To establish “broad vertical commonality,” the fortunes of the investors must be linked only to the efforts of the promoter." https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1522690/000119312511196626/filename8.htm#:~:text=Horizontal commonality” is the tying,pro-rata distribution of profits. Obviously I'm not an attorney though.
×
×
  • 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.