Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

xerxesramesepolybius's Achievements

  1. Settlements by SEC do not mean SEC gives in because they have a weak case. If anyone had been following the regulators for the last decade or so, they would see they usually mean bad banks etc. just give in and pay vaaast fines, hundreds of millions or even billions to avoid even worse things happening to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_SEC_enforcement_actions_(2009–12)
  2. So the consensus of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier. I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.
  3. Well their argument on the "It" seems to come down to the Howie test. Where we will see what happens but they continually talked about the need for "regulatory clarity" while doing every possible to avoid going near a regulator that could have given them clarity so they could continue selling XRP. but to quote Cory Johnson when still a Ripple executive "I think when the SEC takes a good hard look at this and we know they are starting to do some of that work they are going to recognise I suspect that XRP is clearly not a security"
  4. Don't you find it disappointing that the innovations in the Flare network weren't built into XRPL? Where is the XRPL going functionally?
  5. The job of the SEC is to protect investors and help maintain financial stability. It is a dangerous line for regulators to cross in promoting "innovation", too much innovation in finance in the past has lead to wide sale fraud. Leave the encouragement of innovation other parts of government.
  6. It's a fair point @jbjnr but if you look at the history of the civil cases brought by various US regulators going back even to the dotcom era. there is almost always a settlement. The question is what is the nature of the settlement? Slap on the wrist fine for Ripple or big fined $1 Billion and stopped from doing anything to do with XRP. Big range of outcomes. Basically the SEC know Ripple avoided trying to get clarity on the security issue. Asking for copies of the advice from lawyers was probably going too far. It would have completed the picture but it does not negate the evidence they already have. There is plenty more evidence the SEC can win on.
  7. I clearly mentioned the post in my comment, here is the link. Call it FUD it you like, I prefer to use the term "facts". Objective reality is necessary for all investors to make sensible decisions https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2020/comp-pr2020-338.pdf
  8. I know, I know, it is far better to get advice watching the Ambulance Chaser than reading real evidence
  9. Does anyone remember reading the SEC complaint? Ripple made every effort to avoid getting legal clarity. ============================================== The October 2012 Legal Memo also advised Ripple and Larsen to contact the SEC to obtain clarity as to whether XRP was a security under the federal securities laws. 56. By at least 2013, Larsen was aware of the contents of the Legal Memos. 57. On May 26, 2014, Larsen explained in an email to an individual formerly associated with Ripple that the international law firm that wrote the Legal Memos advised “that investors and employees could not receive XRP” because that “could risk SEC designation [as] a security.” Larsen also explained that the XRP he received upon Ripple’s founding was “comp[ensation] for . . . personally assuming th[e] risk” of being deemed the issuers of securities—namely, XRP. 58. In other words, as Larsen himself explained, he was paid at the outset in an asset (potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars) to assume a risk he knew existed—that the sale of the asset could constitute an offering of securities for which he would be held responsible. Case 1:20-cv-10832 Document 4 Filed 12/22/20 59. Despite this knowledge and Larsen’s familiarity with Section 5 from the SEC enforcement action that his previous company had settled in 2008 while Larsen was its CEO, Ripple and Larsen failed to heed some of the legal advice and warnings in the Legal Memos. Neither contacted the SEC to obtain clarity about the legal status of XRP before engaging in a large-scale distribution. Moreover, as described in more detail below, Ripple and Larsen (and later Garlinghouse) offered, sold and promoted XRP as an investment—precisely the type of conduct the Legal Memos had warned could lead to a determination that XRP was a security
  10. Why should the SEC "help" crypto?
  11. I think you are jumping ahead Julian, that contradicts what the judge says about the merits of the case. We shall see won't we as the actual trial unfolds.
  12. I suspect purchases by Ripple, they have publicly acknowledged they purchase large amounts, though they are always a major net seller obviously otherwise they go bust. I wonder if they have been buying recently to stabilise the price. There have been multiple recent occasions when it looked like collapsing when it go pumped back up to $1
  13. I found this on another forum If the judge scratches her nose or yawns it is a huge victory for the XRP Army and Ripple, according to our favourite ambulance chaser lawyer but the case continues on its path to trial. "The Court takes no position about whether Ripple’s pleaded defense is cognizable or if it will prove meritorious." What would Jeremy "I make more money from Youtube adverts than from working as a lawyer" Hogan conclude if the judge belched or sneezed?
  • 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.