Jump to content

cmbartley

Silver Member
  • Posts

    2,313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    cmbartley reacted to thinlyspread in Ripple acquiring 40% stake in cross border payments hub Tranglo to expand ODL   
    I don't consider the two comparable.
  2. Like
    cmbartley reacted to thinlyspread in Why isn't the XRPL popular for issuing tokens?   
    Ripple hoarded XRP for years and neglected any dev funding. The DEX in general is wildly underused and under-marketed. When you control 50%+ of the token supply and sit on it for years, ignoring the community requests for funding novel/exciting projects, never setting up any foundation for grants, etc, that's what you get. 
    I think Ripple have finally learned the lesson, but it's years too late. We were debating this back on XRPtalk in 2013-2016 even. Yet another thing I blame Ripple for as supposed "custodians" of the XRP ledger/ecosystem. Shot themselves in the foot now they need public liquidity. 
  3. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from stickynoodle69 in Exchanges with XRP autobridging? (Aka "I"m not going to spill the beans just yet")   
    I personally would love to see @gatehub really build out the vision of RCL and create an exchange where any two pairs can trade, bridged through XRP if there isn't enough liquidity. They might be able to source inventory on the fly from existing exchanges to reduce their initial crypto captial requirements. I follow these other small communities and they're all worried about how correlated their tokens are to BTC. I suspect Gatehub is working to build some small version of this but have no data. @enej ?
  4. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from stickynoodle69 in Exchanges with XRP autobridging? (Aka "I"m not going to spill the beans just yet")   
    Is it just me or is @gatehub working to facilitate these sorts of autobridged payments? I can pay people in BTC by sending XRP from either wallet it seems...
    I'd love to see a RipplePay button show up that does this in the background start to show up in various places. Seems that Global iD is looking to build this into an identity platform as well it seems. 
  5. Like
    cmbartley reacted to XRPage in Flare integrating LTC and airdrop   
  6. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from LetHerRip in The most disturbing allegations in the SEC complaint   
    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.
  7. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from wogojump in My complaint to the SEC   
    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. 
  8. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from Global in My complaint to the SEC   
    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.
  9. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from XRPage in My complaint to the SEC   
    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.
  10. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from baggy23 in My complaint to the SEC   
    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. 
  11. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from Cesar1810 in My complaint to the SEC   
    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. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from teavan in My complaint to the SEC   
    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. 
  13. Like
    cmbartley reacted to Frisia in Ripple Defence   
    Well yes, but there is a substantial difference between profits and revenues. Also Tesla shows that you can survive a long term without profits, but revenues are the first requirement for any business.
  14. Thanks
    cmbartley reacted to Pablo in Ripple Defence   
    Ripple needs to show that XRP is not a security by demonstrating that the Howey test does not apply to XRP. They will probably also try any other legal manoeuvre available to chip away at the evidence the SEC can submit at trial.
    And yes, Ripple needs to find a way to work around both Kik and Telegram cases. Many of the papers we have seen from Ripple's defenders hinge on the argument that (A) XRP is not a security (which was tested in the Kik case) or (B) XRP is a currency after the FinCen settlement (I think that argument is dead after the Telegram case).
    I think the Kik judgement makes Ripple's argument much, much harder as there are several similarities between Kik's distribution and the early days of Ripple.
    Note that there are several members of the senior SEC leadership who are concerned by the course of events such as Hester Peirce. They are not in the majority. Not yet anyway.
    I've seen this argument - the "Ripple Standard". That's just not how lower courts work. The lower courts will try matters on the facts and existing law. Any new rule could only be formulated at the appellate level, so we're potentially going to the Supreme Court for that. We have a completely different bench on the Supreme Court and no one has any idea how they will respond as the new justices such as Cavanagh and Barrett have little experience in this space. There's a very long road ahead before we can start thinking about Supreme Court appeals.
    Can a new SEC leadership make a difference? They can but this would be limited to the settlement terms. I can't see a new leadership dropping the case. Anything is possible of course but as I've said in other threads, these scenarios are in the realm of politics and fantasy, not law.
    What happens in the meantime? Internally, Ripple's business will continue although there will be a hit to morale and some client negotiations will stall or end abruptly. I've been there several times in my own career, including damaging litigation and the Tech crash in 2000.
    Companies eventually recover from the shock. After the dust settles, Ripple will reach a new normal - the case drags on, clients and markets forget the news and life returns to normal for months and then years. Ripple already has a potentially damaging securities class action on foot. That case didn't stop their business and neither will this.
    The one unknown is how Ripple can keep the lights on without further XRP sales. The disgorgement rules don't allow the SEC to demand a refund of the sale price for the unregistered sales, only the profits. That suggests Ripple can continue to spend its warchest on lawyers, wages, overheads etc. The good news is that IPO is still on the cards - the SEC carefully worded the orders to only injunct Ripple from future offerings of "digital assets".
    The other unknown is how this affects Coil and Xpring - if they rely on XRP sales, then future sales would probably have to stop but luckily they won't be required to refund monies for any XRP they already sold.
    Ripple has been actively lobbying - a clear and comprehensive legislative framework is still the only way out of this mess.
    As for settlement terms, you can find the settlement outline at the end of the Complaint. In summary, it would likely include: (a) limiting the sales of already distributed XRP to be in accordance with the Securities Act and only on registered exchanges, (b) a full refund of profits from the sale of XRP all the way back to foundation, (c) Ripple ending all future sales of XRP and any other digital asset Ripple owns or creates and (d) the payment of fines. That's what prior settlements with the SEC look like as well.
     
  15. Like
    cmbartley reacted to Julian_Williams in Ripple Defence   
    This makes sense to me.  I did not know that ETH crossed the same bridge, then this looks like the big stick
    The ideal outcome is as you say:
    Ripple and owners pass across control of the excess reserve stock to a third party XRPL become governed by an independent body made up of the developers and users and funded by the third party body that now controls the stock Ripple are one of the companies that work with the XRPL Brad and Chris are fined for abusing the system and then left alone The other option is Armageddon because as @Pablo has pointed out SEC really do have a pistol aimed at Ripple's head.
  16. Confused
    cmbartley got a reaction from Finesse in How to Solve the Crisis?   
    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. 
  17. Like
    cmbartley reacted to Pablo in Ripple Defence   
    Just to be clear here. The SEC is not arguing that XRP represents shares in Ripple or that XRP represents an investment in Ripple itself. They are arguing that XRP is an "investment contract" which is a security under the Securities Act and subject to the same rules as other types of securities such as shares, bonds etc.
    Securities require a prospectus that complies with the Act. They both require certain disclosures to the investors and both can only be traded on registered exchanges in the US.
    I think this might be one reason why the SEC Complaint is hard to absorb for many lay people - and even I've made that mistake. I strongly recommend reading the Kik Complaint and judgement - the SEC strategy is laid out there. Justice Hellerstein provides a clear summary of the facts and law and why he ultimately agreed with the SEC that Kin represented an investment contract under the Securities Act.
  18. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from xrphilosophy in If you're still unsure of why BTC is > $24K while XRP is < $1 read page 27 and 28 of the SEC report   
    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. 
  19. Thanks
    cmbartley got a reaction from LilBender in The most disturbing allegations in the SEC complaint   
    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.
  20. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from Xrpdude in If you're still unsure of why BTC is > $24K while XRP is < $1 read page 27 and 28 of the SEC report   
    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. 
  21. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from Xrpdude in If you're still unsure of why BTC is > $24K while XRP is < $1 read page 27 and 28 of the SEC report   
    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. 
  22. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from BruceWhale in The most disturbing allegations in the SEC complaint   
    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.
  23. Like
    cmbartley got a reaction from SquaryBone in If you're still unsure of why BTC is > $24K while XRP is < $1 read page 27 and 28 of the SEC report   
    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?
  24. Like
    cmbartley reacted to buh in Ripple Defence   
    the issue with the volume, is that Ripple used coinmarket cap which inflated volumes by 5x-10x. 
     
    Just ripple selling alone, may have been sufficient to put high sell pressure onto the market. Then you join Brad, Larssen, Jed, Financial institutions (with 30% discounts). Jojn that into a very thin nascent market, during a bear market, that is a melting pot.
  25. Like
    cmbartley reacted to zerpian in Ripple Defence   
    I hope they have their figures correct because there were, if I recall correctly, issues with the reported volume on some exchanges. 
×
×
  • 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.