Jump to content


Bronze Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About corak

Recent Profile Visitors

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

corak's Achievements

  1. Kind of like XRP going from 20 cents to $3 back to 20 cents lol
  2. Considering there is no limit to how many accounts can be created (aside from the 20 XRP deposit) you have no real idea how many "whales" there are or how much "institutional money" is involved. Looking at 20M+ or 100M+ wallets doesn't even give you a lower bound, because of exchanges (and each of those may have multiple hot/cold wallets, of course)
  3. If DeBeers sells you diamonds with some elaborate promises of retaining or increasing their value, based on DeBeers efforts to corner the market, or any other strategy they see fit, does the offering become an illegal securities sale? It's nonsense, either XRP is a security and they have a case or it's not and they don't really. With that said - Ripple likes to call XRP a currency and liken their reserve to a central bank's. The flaw in the analogy is that the CB does not SELL the money it produces. It just hands it off to the Govt or commercial banks in exchange for debt (bonds). Were (theoretically) these debts to be paid back, the money they are paid with would magically disappear, exactly as in the same way it was magically created. But they DON'T get to claim the value of the money they've supplied as profit the way Ripple does when it SELLS XRP.
  4. It is part of the case, yes. They are saying XRP's main function was to finance Ripple's operations and enrich its founders. The numbers do matter, they make it very hard to argue with them. ETH started with an ICO but they are not going after ETH, maybe because the foundation and its founders are not sitting on 70%+ of the supply years after the ICO took place
  5. There's a 70 page document where they explain their case. As to their motives, even if we begin by assuming there's an ulterior motive (like say, a personal vendetta) do you expect it to be communicated openly? Or you can take it at face value, and that the SEC officials believe what's written in their lawsuit is an accurate description of the situation at hand. We will probably never know
  6. But they aren't under any obligation to provide such transparency to XRP holders legally; just like the post office isn't required to report to people even if they are holding a lot of stamps. In fact, saying they SHOULD be obligated towards us is basically agreeing that there is an unspoken investment contract, which actually makes the case for the SEC...
  7. So do you think insiders... like say, Larsen, 3x his position on this? Most insiders are hopelessly overinvested in XRP (despite all the selling) and have no interest in sinking with the XRP ship. Plus, maybe if the price per XRP is cheaper, they can distribute it to the public faster. But sentiment will have to improve somehow... I think their concern is with even being able to dump the rest of it into us. Not with 3x'ing their infinity bag. It was their mistake to claim sole ownership on the XRP ledger to start with. As stupid as the "mining" mechanism of BTC and ETH is, it prevented this exact problem from happening. Now Ripple are paying a price for their decision. Not because crypto speculators are rekt (we don't matter to them at all), but because of "optics" with their supposed customer base. And of course XRP is a Schrodinger's security now, making ODL rather unusable to most FIs. Not that it was even doing that great in the first place. For reference, I still have my bag for old times sake, but I'm not adding anything to it. I'm now of the opinion that 20c is fair price or perhaps even generous given current and future prospects. Bullish analysis on XRP will now have to depend on that nobody else beats Ripple to the punch. How many years are they going to have to fend off bullshit litigation while XRP stays in this unusable state? FINCEN and SEC are basically burying this project alive, it has such potential, will be sad to see it go to waste
  8. I just wonder how can an asset be a security one day and then stop being one the next day. How does it make sense to these guys? Do words mean nothing to them?
  9. Even if the legal system isn't truly this idiotic, just the fact the plaintiff thinks they can get away with such a lawsuit is pretty sad/scary. If there's any sanity in this system the plaintiff should be charged with the legal costs of everyone involved.
  10. I really want Bitconbase to lose, but this is such a farce, to claim they are liable for selling what was retroactively deemed a security in another lawsuit that hasn't even been resolved yet.
  11. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
  12. Back then the XRP ledger was functioning as a distributed exchange for non-native assets (like Bitstamp.USD for example) which redeem for actual currency, and I think that's what got them in trouble with FinCEN. Because something like Bitstamp.USD is a debt instrument payable in currency. The action against Ripple was made on the basis that they supplied wallet software, which made them responsible for their users having access to these debt instruments (which could be used for FX trading for example) without them having a license to act as MSB. (Though it's not clear why Ripple is at fault and not the "gateways" that existed at the time. I'm not sure I understand it right but I don't think it had to do with XRP at the time.
  13. "I feel like I almost have to give a trigger warning here, if there are any Bitcoin maximalists who've gone into this room, this material may be a bit triggering for them... just a heads up"
  • 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.