Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

rom's Achievements

  1. A good bit of positive energy here too. https://cryptoking.org/open-letter-to-mr-gary-gensler-chairman-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission/
  2. Strictly speaking, during last month or so EM was moving only BTC + DOGE and only secondarily XRP + other alts. Of the big factors, XRP price is impacted by two: – SEC (short-to-medium term) and – Ripple (long term)*. SEC is responsible. for the current depression of XRP price. Ripple is responsible for creating these conditions of extreme XRP volatility. My point on XRP volatility – example from yesterday, 17.05.2021: H=1,30 Eur, L=1,08 Eur (as per Bitstamp), intraday delta > 20 Eurocents. This is bad for hodlers, but also a veritable profit machine for traders. I am wondering, if we can speak of two types of XRP utility now: one – THE transfer asset, the other – THE speculation vehicle. * — I exclude "whales" from this analysis, for they are jumping from asset to asset (like pumping XRP two days ago and then pumping ADA yesterday), and their impact is spread out more or less evenly.
  3. BNB surprising me. This is one very well managed coin.
  4. Speaking of investing in CB... I hear persistent rumours, that CB is one of those x, that have been using their clients' frozen XRP's to enrich themselves elsewhere. Couple of days ago read of another lady, who hasn't been able to get her XRP's out of CB for this whole delisting period, which goes against what CB help section says ("you will be able to deposit and withdraw..."). Just wondering how much truth is in those rumours.
  5. Not by much. 10 dollars is roughly the target, that makes billion dollar transactions possible.
  6. rom: Sorry to garbage-up this pristine thread with some more politics! I thought you may want to read this short informative article from Forbes magaz. Heavy shelling back at the SEC. Obtained via Reddit/Ripple from CryptoRookieX and Liagala, thanks to you! Liagala: "I had to jump through a few hoops to get the article to display without "X of 4 free articles" pop-ups, hidden text, and all that garbage. If you're having the same problem, here you go: Forbes article: Some agency chairs find an ambiguous statute hard to resist. They overinterpret their authority to regulate, and Congress too often goes along. The backstop of this excess is the courts, provided that the aggrieved have the wherewithal to defend themselves against the gargantuan administrative state. This familiar story is playing out in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) lawsuit against cryptocurrency innovator Ripple, but the buck stops with Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn whose discovery hearing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday exposed the SEC’s unfounded and flawed arguments and some inconvenient truths for former SEC Chair Jay Clayton and former SEC Corporation Finance Division head William Hinman. The hearing showed that the case the San Francisco fintech was based on an illogical premise. It alleged that XRP, the digital currency that Ripple uses for cross-border payments, has been an unregistered security since 2013 and that the SEC was just getting around to saying so on the last day of Clayton’s tenure last December. With this late in the game regulatory determination, the SEC now deems that every Ripple sale for seven years was an illegal securities trade. And that Ripple, its two top executives named in the suit, along with millions of retail holders, should have known this all along, even though the agency never did. Due process and fair notice were thrown out the window to get the case across the transom on the day that Clayton walked out the door. The hearing detailed the many vague, contradictory statements regulators made on cryptocurrency over the years. In 2018 Clayton told CNBC that bitcoin is not a security, and Hinman gave a widely covered speech which laid out how ether was not a security, despite debuting in an initial coin offering (ICO) in 2014. With XRP they said its status had “not been determined.” Trading platforms asked the SEC if XRP was a security before listing the token, and the agency refused to clarify. When asked whether XRP was a security, the then-chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Heath Tarbert in a 2020 interview declared, “It's unclear. Stay tuned. We're working closely with the SEC to figure out what falls into what box.” If these regulators were honest, they would admit that nothing in the 1933 Securities Act refers to cryptocurrency and then would request Congress to clarify the statue. Instead, the SEC made an unfounded determination with no warning or process. Back to Judge Netburn’s courtroom. Ripple requested the internal documentation to explain how and why the SEC arrived at their pronouncements as well as silence on these various coins. The SEC responded that nothing that was ever said by Clayton, Hinman or any SEC official about bitcoin or ether was that was an “official determination” on whether they are securities. It appears that Netburn is not buying the SEC’s argument that their many statements were not material. In a March 22 hearing, she told the SEC her understanding of XRP: “. . . not only does it have a currency value but it has a utility, and that utility distinguishes it from bitcoin and ether.” This rejects the SEC’s story that XRP has never had utility. Netburn ordered the SEC to produce all communications related to XRP, bitcoin, and ether where a third party was involved, and any formal internal documents “expressing the agency's interpretation or views” on cryptocurrency, and to deliver them to Ripple. She granted most of Ripple’s motion, which means that the discovery could be a treasure trove of embarrassing information for the SEC. This could mean game over for the SEC’s case against Ripple and more largely, a serious blow to the agency’s credibility. Other defendants will cite the SEC’s arbitrary and capricious nature. These disclosures could bring new headaches to scandal-plagued Apollo Capital Management which Clayton joined upon leaving the SEC, ostensibly to clean up the mess left by founder Leon Black and his links to Jeffrey Epstein. The timing of the lawsuit on Clayton’s last day and his subsequent hiring by a crypto-focused hedge fund are very curious coincidences. Conflict of interest concerns could also intensify for Hinman, now back at his old firm Simpson Thacher, which paid him a $1.6 million annual pension while he worked at the SEC. Hinman’s influence to the determination that ether is not a security keeps the SEC’s regulatory paws off Ethereum, the blockchain platform which Simpson Thacher supports as a member of the Ethereum Enterprise Alliance. Simpson Thatcher also handled the $100 million IPO of Canaan, the Chinese maker of machines used to mine cryptocurrency. Netburn’s order should bring much-needed transparency to the case. Gary Gensler, slated to be confirmed as the next SEC chairman, will take the helm when China is racing ahead with a closed-ledger digital currency threatening to unseat the dollar a leading medium of global exchange. It was extremely shortsighted of the SEC to handicap Ripple at a time when the US needs every American crypto leader on board to compete with China. Moreover, the case seems to reveal that former SEC leaders put their personal gain above the well-being of the nation. When the agency repeatedly claims in filings and hearings that “the SEC is not on trial here”, it is almost certain that the opposite is true." rom: Some may remember my text back in Dec2020, that the SEC case very much resembles a (business) war of control over some lucrative resource. Well, I've been finding more and more evidence, that SEC was indeed both a weapon and a mercenary in the case of Ripple. Beginning with Jay Claytonz and his vices carrier moves immediately after leaving SEC, there appears new evidence by the week. It will not take years to gather the big pic.
  7. That was very strategic from you. Quite a few folks hearts could have stopped. Nevertheless, this is the la futura I intend for myself – cash out at XRP=10.
  8. I did. I filled that form today. Whatever mistakes Ripple did to XRP, those just pale in comparison to SEC attack.
  9. T is a shady business, there I agree w you 100%. My own critical remarks begun to appear ~ 1 yr ago. I particularly analysed market strategies of USDT v.s. XRP. They have really cutting edge market strategists, which XRP are missing (and it shows). And I cannot deny USDT's amazing utility. My conclusion: that shady USDT is THE competitor to XRP in the area of Ripple's activities (and to other coins in shady dealings), but SEC is going after R. Much like looking for lost keys under the streetlight, instead of looking, where you may have lost them.
  10. Forbes magaz is thinking along the same lines. Some spectacular sentences: "The case represents a significant regulatory overreach", "Such turf grabbing is a classic symptom of regulatory obsolescence...". https://www.forbes.com/sites/roslynlayton/2021/12/29/sec-v-ripple-the-cryptocurrency-trial-of-the-century/?sh=72e4adc75417
  11. Thanks! He seems to be competent in law and start-up strategies. Liked his point by point responses to SEC doc. Building a start-up is very different from doing bureaucracy. I had the impression and @Pablo just made it stronger, that SEC bent the truth by picking pieces out of context. Also I decided to share another document, that shines still more light on the whole SEC "thing". This doc predates SEC action. https://chinatechthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Senate-Policy-Letter-Cryptocurrencies-and-the-Next-SEC-Chair.pdf
  12. Thank you for reading the link! Yes, it is it. An academic analysis by former SEC officials of SEC document. Good for understanding and positive for XRP – currency case. Should calm panicking minds, if they read such papers. Why I used the word "shelling" – because it fits business wars, if they spill into open. – to aggressively bombard with arguments the public and the opponents with the intention of "changing public's perception", "gaining advantage", <you name it>.
  13. Please excuse my going off-topic, but this is worth mentioning and, possibly, reading. Found this on reddit. In brief – big guns beginning shelling from the Ripple's side (Ripple owner side). It supports my hypothesis, that we are witnessing a war of business groups over the control of a certain technology/market/whatever. Ugly, as it is, but fairly normal. And, in general, take-over battles are good for asset prices. https://www.iflr.com/article/b1m2pm9g4n65mk/cryptocurrencies-and-us-securities-laws-beyond-bitcoin-and-ether?fbclid=IwAR2jh7GAwBYdyP1aFRpCDaF-MB9h3YKOgoikkMIa7wv4sBpepktVndNA7mw Happy holidays!
  14. Cheers to everyone, who held through this SEC affair! I largely missed out on the fuss due to other duties. Got very surprised, when setting up a sell order at 0,60 and receiving a buy signal at 0,25 instead. But XRP price graph for the last 24 hours is a clear sign, that not very many got carried away by this PR stunt.
  15. Just finished reading SEC filing and Ripple's first response. SEC have invested thousands of hours to reverse engineer Ripple's strategy and in doing so brought to light quite a pile something. Part of it we did know. What is certain, however, is this trio: – business is about not telling the whole truth, – politics is about not telling the whole truth and bending the rest of it, – behind every move in politics stands business. Correct me, if SEC is not "politics". Therefore and most likely behind this SEC filing stand some large business interests. These are the first shots exchanged in an economic war. I take it as a confirmation, that Ripple have dented the canvas of reality enough to become a craved asset for some yet unnamed group. Luckily, the backers of R seem to be as big. To cut the long story, I expect a protracted showdown, that results in nothing.
  • 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.