Jump to content

deadestfish

Member
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

deadestfish's Achievements

  1. Sorry, I don't understand how this hack was possible, probably me missing something. Why did @Mercury ever have the private keys for these addresses? There's absolutely no way a number of private keys were found by brute force, so it I think it has to have been that the private keys were stored insecurely or an inside job.
  2. Yeah, I think that’s about right. You can read the SEC’s case in such a way that it doesn’t disagree with the statement ‘a person taking delivery of XRP and using it for transactions on the XRPL is not purchasing a security’. I think it’s fair to say the SEC doesn’t care about that. They do care about the information disparity between retail XRP holders and senior employees of Ripple who can sell XRP freely but their job will mean they know when good or bad news affecting XRP price will be released.
  3. SEC has been using the term ‘digital asset security’ since at least 2018. It isn’t new. https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/digital-asset-securites-issuuance-and-trading The Howey test says nothing about shareholder rights needing to be granted for a contract, transaction or scheme to be considered a security under the 1933 Securities Act.
  4. Looking at settled cases involving digital assets does make a lot sense and the settlement with EOS/ Block One is one of the key cases to consider. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-202 It is worth remembering, the SEC action here related to the single year long ICO ran to raise funds to develop the EOS blockchain. That is, the judgement was not that EOS coins available today were unregistered securities, but the ICO token sold to investors prior to the launch of the EOS blockchain in 2017 - 18 were. The SEC's argument in the Ripple case is that sales of XRP were always of unregistered securities, kind of like a single, years-long, never ending ICO. This clear difference in the view the SEC has taken in the two cases is worth understanding.
  5. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the SEC Complaint (you're highlighted section is from Paragraph 3). In Paragraph 4, the SEC is arguing that Ripple and Larsen assumed the risk that XRP would be deemed a security. Larsen's stated belief that he personally assumed the risk of XRP being deemed to be security, would seem to reinforce that.
  6. That's in relation to the legal advice received in the early days of Ripple, not the email from 2015.
  7. The first time I have read the words "under certain circumstances" is in your response. Where do you find this qualification?
  8. It establishes without question that Chris Larsen was aware that xrp could be designed as a security in May, 2015.
  9. This is from the SEC complaint. I do wonder who the individual formerly associated with Ripple is. It was almost certainly this person who provided the email dated May 26, 2014 to the SEC, where Chris Larsen stated in writing he personally assumed the risk of Ripple being deemed the issuer of securities.
  10. https://www.ft.com/content/25648f67-36bb-45f1-8e37-3dabd4c68e89 You may get paywalled, I did but I managed to access the article from a Google search.
  11. This did not tell me what to think, that's ridiculous. I have read the full SEC complaint, too. This analysis did highlight some of the important arguments in the case, which I didn't pick up on in much depth on my own reading. This is an analysis of the SEC's complaint, as such it is going to be one sided. It contains literally one side of the story, by definition. That doesn't mean the relevant legal points cannot be teased out in layman's terms.
  12. Why do people always need someone to form an analysis for them? - Because they may not be trained or knowledgeable about the relevant laws, but would like to understand what the SEC are setting out as their case. and why wouldn’t someone have time to research something they invest real money in? - Have you read the SEC complaint? Are you trained in securities law?
  13. I found this analysis of the SEC complaint to contain useful and it maybe a useful reference for those without the time to read the full 72 page document. https://www.securities.io/an-analysis-of-the-sec-vs-ripple-labs-inc-complaint/ Submitted without comment. Form your own opinions.
  14. in which accidentally, he argues for one of the SEC's key points. For xrp to increase value, retail are reliant on Ripple the company's efforts. That is the common enterprise and expectation of profit in a nutshell. If investors are putting money into xrp with the expectation of profit through the efforts of Ripple the company, that's a common enterprise and the efforts of others. If the only way xrp gains value is through the efforts of Ripple, it's a security.
  15. Same source: MoneyGram has had a commercial agreement with Ripple since June 2019; this agreement represents the use of Ripple's foreign exchange (FX) blockchain trading platform (ODL) for the purchase or sale of four currencies. MoneyGram has continued to utilize its other traditional FX trading counterparties throughout the term of the agreement with Ripple, and is not dependent on the Ripple platform to accomplish its FX trading needs.
×
×
  • 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.