Jump to content

brjXRP17

Member
  • Content count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

brjXRP17 last won the day on September 19 2017

brjXRP17 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About brjXRP17

  • Rank
    Member
  1. A Stellar Story

    @DrWhoAmI, ha, that does not surprise me one bit. Also, @Pablo, here was my latest post. Enjoy!
  2. A Stellar Story

    It's just misleading, @Zareh. Sure, they are a nonprofit under state law, they just aren't tax-exempt with the IRS. My follow-up questions are: 1) Does Stellar have any other entities they are operating with (e.g., LLC)? 2) Do they have a tax-exempt application in with the IRS that's still pending (e.g., new application)? 3) Are they telling their partners (e.g., IBM) and potential partners that they are tax-exempt when they aren't (as of the date of my letter)? It's been 17+ months past the deadline. 4) Stripe and several other companies have donated money to the Stellar Development Foundation. Did Stripe write that amount off as a donation to a tax-exempt entity? And if so, what happens when Stellar hasn't been deemed tax-exempt by the IRS, is that money taxed now or is that an investment of some other sorts? 5) Is Stellar currently under audit? This nonprofit and charity space is a big red flag, you have to be careful.
  3. Hey Guys, As of December 29, 2017, the IRS has no record of the Stellar Development Foundation having tax-exempt status (see letter below). Therefore, as of the date of the IRS letter addressed to me below, the Stellar Development Foundation is not a nonprofit that typically comes to mind when we think of nonprofits (e.g., American Red Cross, United Way, The Salvation Army, American Cancer Society, UNICEF, etc.). Their website says the opposite and this is somewhat confusing. Now, here is the story. There have been too many posts here about Stellar and their digital asset XLM. You could argue XLM is a direct/indirect competitor to Ripple and XRP. That’s a discussion for a different day. But the way my research was conducted on Stellar was the same way my research was conducted on Ripple Labs, Inc. And my research into the Stellar Development Foundation brought to my attention a specific court case that you may or may not know about - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb et al (2015, San Francisco, California, Case CGC15544133) In the complaint filed by Arthur Britto, it was alleged that the Stellar Development Foundation was fundamentally not a nonprofit enterprise (please remember the word "alleged;" it was never proven in court. The case was dismissed and settled out of court). Anyways, this was not the first time this was brought to my attention, so I decided to look into this some more. According to the IRS, tax-exempt organizations must make annual returns and exemption applications filed with the IRS available for public inspection and copying upon request. In addition, the IRS makes these documents available. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-public-disclosure-and-availability-requirements For example, The Bitcoin Foundation, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington (state, not D.C.), makes their financials and IRS forms available online (no IRS request needed; they also have their address listed on their website). https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/irs-990-forms/ https://bitcoinfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BTC_Foundation_FY2016-FY2017_Financials.pdf According to the website’s Terms of Service, the Stellar Development Foundation is a Delaware nonprofit corporation. Although no address is listed on their website (couldn’t find one as of January 18, 2018), Stellar appears to be headquartered in San Francisco, California, for they are registered with the California Secretary of State as a foreign nonprofit entity (Delaware) doing business in California. "Well, if they are a nonprofit, their financials statements and what not should be on their website." That was my thought, for U.S law allows individuals and companies to request information on nonprofits, including the status of the nonprofit (i.e., one can actually lose their tax exempt status). I could not find their financials or their non-exempt, IRS tax documents anywhere, so I decided to keep digging. Found a memorandum posted on their website, and the memo was addressed to the Board of Directors of the Stellar Development Foundation, for they had asked about clarifying the Foundation's nonprofit status. The memo states that "the IRS allows an organization 27 months from the date of incorporation to file its tax exemption application and have the exemption, once granted, be effective retroactively to the date of incorporation." Here is the timeline: Stellar incorporated in Delaware - 3/31/2014 (0 months) Memorandum from law firm - 3/6/2015 (11+ months) IRS filing deadline - 6/30/2016 (27 months) My letter from the IRS - 12/29/2017 (44+ months; 17+ months past deadline) At this point, I check the IRS' website and do not find the Stellar Development Foundation on their tax-exempt list. So, I filled out the proper request paperwork and sent it in to the IRS, and found out everything out that way. To be completely honest with you guys, the reason for this posting is informational. Some of us here own both XRP and XLM. Stellar's application with the IRS could be pending still or something like that. Maybe they are operating under a different entity name (e.g., Ripple Labs, Inc. and XPR II, LLC). Maybe they are just operating as a for-profit and haven't changed their website (doubt it). If this status is correct, just be aware of it. Hopefully their partners are aware of it. Lastly, there is a difference between being a "nonprofit" (this is state level) vs. being "tax-exempt" (determined by the IRS). Very confusing. Stellar is a "nonprofit" at the state level (filed as nonprofit in Delaware). However, they are not tax-exempt (as of the date of my IRS letter). Ha, still going to buy XLM (and more XRP), for this space won't care about this and seems completely irrational at times. Later.
  4. Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple Labs, Inc.

    This case was dismissed without prejudice (i.e., plaintiff can re-file claim if he wants to later) by the court in California yesterday (January 12, 2018). The plaintiff, Tony Petrucci of North Carolina, never showed up.
  5. Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple Labs, Inc.

    Can you elaborate more on this please, @Sukrim? Not sure about all of the facts here, and that's why this guy will have his day in court, but if Ripple Labs, Inc. has/had a "hosted wallet platform," there would most certainly be a Terms of Service and any user would be subject to that document. And if so, we have to see what that says. Thanks in advance.
  6. Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple Labs, Inc.

    Go to this link (below) or Google search "The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco case search," @Essq Just search "Ripple Labs." Let me know if you need any help. https://webapps.sftc.org/captcha/captcha.dll?referrer=https://webapps.sftc.org/cc/CaseCalendar.dll?=
  7. Guys, While searching for a Ripple Labs vs. R3 update in the California court records, a different court case came to my attention. Tony Petrucci of North Carolina (plaintiff) is suing Ripple Labs, Inc. (defendant) for $5,885.68 USD in small claims court because "21,798.84 Units of currency (XRP) (was) not accessible due to upgrades by Ripple Labs, Inc. that I was not made aware of." According to the complaint (see pictures below), this allegedly happened on 6/19/2017. When asked how the plaintiff (Tony Petrucci) calculated the money owed to him, his answer under oath stated "currency (XRP) worth an all time high of 0.42 per unit, recently trading at 0.25 - 0.29. I will accept $0.27 per unit, which equates to $5,885.68." He asked Ripple Labs, Inc. to reimburse him prior to filing the lawsuit. The trial in small claims court beings on January 12, 2018. Notes: 1.) What is this guy doing? 2.) In small claims court in San Francisco CA, individuals can file a claim to up to $10,000 USD. 3.) 21,798.84 "units" (XRP) is now worth over $65,000.00 USD. 4.) Not sure if Mr. Petrucci is going to fly out to California and represent himself (think of Judge Judy type court, that is small claims) or if he is going to hire a lawyer. Maybe he can conference in via telephone. 5.) A plaintiff cannot appeal a decision made in small claims court in California. 6.) Success will unfortunately bring suits like this. Ha, just add it to my list of cases to track. Keep you guys posted.
  8. Here you go, @aye-epp. The California court agreed to hear a motion for reconsideration or agreed to reanalyze whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case in California. This is good news for Ripple. The hearing is on December 13, 2017. Hopefully your statements come true and these lawsuits either get settled or dropped from New York and continued in California. Keep you posted.
  9. With all due respect, @aye-epp, the end is NOT near with either lawsuit involving Ripple Labs and R3 filed in California and New York (unless a settlement is being negotiated as we speak, and I doubt that right now). Ripple Labs had an early "procedural" win in Delaware, for that court threw out the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. Looking at the California lawsuit, where Ripple Labs filed the suit and is the plaintiff, on November 29, 2017, R3 had the same "procedural" win Ripple Labs had in Delaware, for the California judge granted a motion filed by R3 for lack of jurisdiction. Ripple Labs asked the court to reconsider the granting of R3's motion and no go, they ruled the same way. It's 1-1 right now. There is a hearing in New York City on December 19, 2017 about whether or not the case is going to stay in New York; whether the court in New York has jurisdiction over Ripple Labs (being from California), and it looks like the court will keep the case in New York. Ripple Labs and R3 are no where close to being finished with this thing or even close to being heard/arguing over the facts in open court, for everything right now has just been "procedural posturing" to get the best venue possible to succeed. Ripple Labs wants the case in California and R3 wants the case in New York. Going to provide an update for you guys next week.
  10. Meetup in Houston - Anyone?

    Anyone in the Houston Texas area want to get coffee/breakfast tomorrow morning (December 2nd, 2017) in or near downtown? Let me know. Let's talk Ripple and XRP!
  11. Ripple Labs v. R3 (actual court documents)

    Here is the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA, @Professor Hantzen. It was finally released to the public on 11/21/2017. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/12051-technology-provider-agreement-ripple-and-r3-actual-court-documents/
  12. Here is the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA, @Sharkey. See page 7 for that specific clause. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/12051-technology-provider-agreement-ripple-and-r3-actual-court-documents/ TPA is linked above, @Pablo. You can view the original complaint (both jurisdictions) and the option agreement in my post here. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/
  13. And here is what was filed in court. Enjoy.
  14. Hey guys, Happy Thanksgiving. Hope you all have a safe and fun holiday with your friends and family. A while back, my first post highlighted the legal dispute between Ripple Labs, Inc. and R3, providing this community the documents filed in court ( https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/ ) That legal dispute is still ongoing in two different jurisdictions right now (CA and NY). A main document that was missing from my original post (and the court records) was the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA that was executed between both parties, Ripple and R3. That document was filed in court two days ago and is now available to the public. My notes on the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA: The Technology Provider Agreement is dated August 16, 2016. R3 was/is responsible for the overall management and execution of the project (page 2). There were two (2) phases of Project Xenon (page 2). "Following the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, after considering the results of the completed Phase and feedback from the participating R3 Members, the determination to proceed with the Phase 2 shall be solely at R3's option and discretion." (page 2) R3 was/is required to issue a report regarding the outcome of the project, objectively and without bias (page 2). R3's project report was/is confidential information. Have not seen this document filed in court (yet). No clue if this was completed by R3 either. Ripple shall not solicit feedback from R3 members unless R3 approved it first. If a participating R3 member contacted Ripple with feedback, Ripple had to make a reasonable effort to include R3 in the conversation (page 3). Technology license and related obligations. In my opinion, this is one of the important parts of this agreement (page 3). "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to all of the technology it contributes to the Project including all intellectual property rights..." (page 3) My view here is this. If Ripple's provides their technology, they still own it. If R3 brought something to the table, they still own that. Pretty standard. "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to any adaptions and modifications of its background technology." (page 3) "The parties agree to disclose promptly in writing and deliver to the other party all derivative technology that it conceives, creates or develops during the term of this agreement." (page 3) In a recent post of mine, it was highlighted that one of the discovery requests asked by Ripple of R3 was about "atomic mode." Was R'3 Corda's atomic mode feature derivative technology that came from this relationship? If so, did R3 communicate that with Ripple? R3 has not answered any of the discovery requests from Ripple Labs (as of 11/22). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/11893-r3-stonewalling-ripple-labs-in-legal-action/?tab=comments#comment-121617 "Neither party will reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the other party's proprietary software or attempt to extract any materials and/or exploit any intellectual property embodied in the other party's proprietary software except in furtherance of the commercial partnership and purposes contemplated under this agreement." (page 4) Ripple was/is required to provide R3 with a quarterly report (page 5). Option clause (page 5). We have already seen this. If the agreement is terminated by either party, R3 and any "sublicensees" of Ripple's technology R3 issued (project participants) shall immediately stop using Ripple's technology (page 7). Any disputes arising out of the agreement shall be governed by New York law. Both parties waived their right to a trial by jury (page 11). Ripple filed their complaint in California and demanded a jury trial whereas R3 filed their complaint in Delaware and New York, and they did not request a jury trial. Regarding some of you in this community and your frustrations about Ripple announcing partnerships and who Ripple was/is working with (past, currently or future), this agreement discusses the public disclosure of the agreement and R3 participating members (page 12), shedding some light on joint press releases, getting permission first, etc. Ripple could be working with a central bank or Visa or Amazon (enter any company name here), and we will never know about it until they want us to know. Hate to assume anything, but it is a safe assumption that this clause or something similar is in every agreement Ripple signs with a potential customer. Objective of the project was/is "to explore the potential of digital assets and shared ledger technology in executing customer money movements (as opposed to only moving cash in support of other assets on a ledger...the aim is to demonstrate where the current overheads involved in Nostro accounting can potentially be reduced." ("Exhibit B") One goal of the project was/is having R3 operate Azure node running Rippled ("Exhibit B"). Several things were determined to be outside of the scope of this project ("Exhibit B"). You guys should check these out. Trading use cases which are not settled in cash (e.g., title changes). Nostro accounts held by banks funded with XRP Hedging Wholesale transaction sizes The Project Xenon plan or timetable (snapshot as of 7/13/2016) is in "Exhibit B" Phase 1 - "enable banks to settle transactions on Ripple with each other using XRP to create markets from cash balances." The goal of Phase 1 was to provide viability of the technology ("Exhibit B"). For Phase 1, the time needed to complete the phase for each bank was/is two days. Found this very interesting/cool. My thought was this. If a bank approached Ripple today and wanted to test their technology, does that first round of testing also take two days? Assume "two days" to be two business days, and there are a five business days in a week, but it somewhat puts it into perspective how much time it takes to get just one bank live. Phase 2 - "provide member banks with an additional hosted Ripple Connect instance accessible via browser (fiat payments and messaging), and keep Phase 1 running." The goal of Phase 2 was/is the same as Phase 1. "Exhibit C" appears to be the grant language and/or form for each Project Xenon participant. The amount of XRP granted to each participant was/is 150,000 XRP. "At the conclusion of Project Xenon, you may keep this XRP or you may return it to Ripple." ("Exhibit C") Page 18 and page 26 were blank in the court filings, so those two pages were left out of the documents post below. You can view the original complaints (CA and NY) and the option agreement here: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/
×