Jump to content

Pablo

Moderator
  • Content Count

    1,823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Pablo last won the day on February 15

Pablo had the most liked content!

About Pablo

  • Rank
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Nice stuff - I went through a few of the tracks and you might want to check the gain across the tracks. One of the tracks nearly popped my headphones - I think it was "Corrupted Save". Great to see music and content makers moving across to Cinnamon and Coil. Would be even better to hear you guys making some well-earned fees from it.
  2. This is one of the first things I picked up. It's a really big deal. See my response from December:
  3. It might be worth remembering that each of Ripple, Chris and Brad must have separate lawyers and be represented individually. That's the only way this could proceed. They can't share the one legal team. Ripple has no choice in this because each of the defendants has separate factual matrices to address and there would be obvious conflicts of interest to defend all 3 by the same legal team. Also, the Ripple defence was careful not to pin this on Chris or Brad which they could have easily done. They could have argued that the execs acted outside their authority and that Ripple has no liabil
  4. I don't understand what Jesse is getting at - he's trolling at this point. The disqualification applies to directors and officers who request a waiver of automatic disqualification as part of the financial settlement. Disqualifications guard against future participation in certain activities by those entities or individuals whose misconduct suggests they cannot be trusted. The SEC is simply saying that the decision to waive these disqualifications should be done by a separate team who specialise in considering the broad impact on the company and individuals. These factors are not the sam
  5. Yes, it was put up online by the lawyers for Tetragon. Probably done in response to Ripple’s press release which Tetragon felt didn’t accurately represent their position. Great insight of what has been going on behind the curtains and also clarifies how long Ripple’s investors have known, and been concerned, about the SEC investigation, compared to XRP investors. https://www.morrisoncohen.com/siteFiles/files/CA_2021-0007-MTZ_Tetragon_Financial_Group_v_Ripple_Labs_COMPLAINT.PDF
  6. Based on the SEC complaint, that could be problematic. Now, Ripple could ignore the SEC claim and continue business as usual while waiting for the court case to resolve. Some companies have done just that and seemed to get away with it. But if the court finds against Ripple, they wouldn't be able to even give XRP away without registering the transfer. It's not clear which way Ripple is heading - do they continue as before, or pull back and hold off any further XRP transactions until the matter is resolved? That's why I and others were scratching their heads as to how Ripple is still allo
  7. FinCen has a different scope of powers to the SEC and different targets.
  8. Agreed but it's a catch-22 for Ripple. If they disclose this information about XRP sales, it looks like they are treating XRP like a security. The other side of that catch-22 is that not disclosing may have been the very thing that got them into this mess in the first place! Interestingly, while we know that Gary Gensler has discussed Ripple after being prompted, he actually uses the Ethereum Foundation as his "classic" case of centralisation of effort in the promotion of ETH. Which ties in with a little dig that Brad made at Joe Lubin at Davos in 2019 (tee'd up here: https://youtu.be/Qzg
  9. Believe me, I had a big meal before braving this podcast but I know Gabriel personally and while he trolls the living crap out of Ripple and the XRP Army (whoever that is), he actually takes a measured approach to the legal issues at hand. I don't agree at all with his assessment of the XRPL but it's OK to disagree and he's entitled to his opinion. Gabe does make some valid points towards the 2nd half of the video, particularly around settlement options. This includes what a future looks like for Ripple and how they might be able to navigate a future involving their ongoing sales of XRP.
  10. This might be an academic argument because the SEC did not request confiscation or burning assets in the draft orders set out in the Complaint. I don't think the SEC would ever burn assets that could be sold so that investors can be compensated. What we don't know is whether Ripple has enough cash to provide sufficient disgorgement should they lose or settle. Here's a recent enforcement action against Shipchain from December that resulted in the SEC confiscating Shipchains' SHIP coins to a Fund Administrator to help compensate investors: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/33-10909
  11. They are in fact very plausible outcomes. That's not to say they're desirable. Ripple would need to become an SEC reporting entity and report sales of XRP to the market which would have to be sold on registered exchanges, not your average crypto exchange. Even that might not be a problem because Coinbase is, in fact, in the process of applying as a registered exchange. They are doing that for bigger reasons than XRP obviously but there is no reason why, in a worst case scenario, Ripple couldn't sell XRP on Coinbase if Coinbase's licence comes through. In this scenario, Ripple would a
  12. I know they do but I wonder if Ripple has a bias towards lawyers with banking, finance and mergers/acquisitions backgrounds rather than tech backgrounds where contract drafting is a fine art. In my long experience, these lawyers, while very good at what they do, aren’t so good at what I do. For example, even a cursory read of the R3 contracts I did on the forum a few years ago left me scratching my head. And the one page Founders Agreement would give me mega LOLs were it not for the fact that they are splitting up a cool 100 billion XRP. Of course, both these contracts came back to
  13. Sadly, I'm of the view that Ripple will have a very tough time in this matter. The redemption clause has sub-optimal drafting given its importance. There's a very long trail of poor drafting decisions going back to the Founders Agreement, the R3 agreements and now this. I'm not sure if it's purely down to technical drafting skills because some of these things look like drafting done under extreme pressure and a lack of negotiating leverage. Notwithstanding that, there are some obvious problems here. The clause has one major flaw that Tetragon will exploit: a lack of interpretative hurdles
  14. I think this is the main thread. There are only breadcrumbs about the topic because he wanted Ripple's competitors to have to do their own homework as to how the patent could benefit them. And here are the patents filed in Bob's name relating to his work at Ripple: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Way%2C+Robert&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=Ripple&FIELD2=ASNM&d=PTXT
  15. I think Bob made it clear that he was dealing with health issues. I recall a brief return but it didn't last long. He also mentioned at least once that he found posting and tweeting tiring. Reading through his posts it's easy to see why - these were not lighthearted, throwaway lines. If I had to choose between my good health and driving my body/mind into the ground on social media, it would be a very easy choice. The best thing to do is actually snip the cord and walk away. I've been there myself - the mere thought of logging back in to crypto is too much. Satoshi certainly didn't do a fa
×
×
  • 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.