Jump to content

Pablo

Platinum Member
  • Content Count

    1,934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Pablo last won the day on March 20

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. Here's what's more amazing: as they are taxed at higher rates in the coming years (which, as an old lefty, I completely support), the "game" of donating shares/tokens to charity using otherwise unlawful inside information becomes even more lucrative! If the SEC is serious about protecting investors, maybe they could stop mucking about and close that loophole? That applies to crypto founders and insiders too, most of whom have been mining that rich seam of tax minimisation for years. The best ones are those who donate to their own soi-disant "charitable" not-for-profit organisations t
  2. It might appear so but Jed is actually the biggest beneficiary as he claims a tax credit on the contributions that cost him nothing. He still gets to pocket about 40% of the $100m. Another variation of tax "minimisation" which is being exploited right now in the land of the wealthy CEO is to use insider information to game the donation of shares to charities. As reported recently in this paper from a team at Duke Law School:
  3. Some of their investigations go well beyond securities laws and the Ripple case. Why do this? I think it serves a dual purpose: There's the immediate benefit in this matter. Even if the SEC is setting up for settlement, they need leverage. Putting Ripple's customers and other regulators under pressure in their home country is what leverage looks like. Ripple can call that tactic "improper" but that's lawyer-speak for "effective". Secondly, the US regulatory environment is in gridlock in relation to crypto. The US can't simply lower the bar and remodel their laws to match other nati
  4. I'm with @Baka here. I think we can be 100% certain of major corrections in this market for the simple reason that the order books are so unbelievably thin and concentrated across the board compared with mature commodities markets that a small correction can quickly turn into a rout within minutes or hours. There's a lot of coordinated bot activity which can switch off and pull the rug out. I watched entire buy sides of order books evaporate in seconds during the Reddit pump earlier this year. That was February - as in a few weeks ago. So yes, major corrections are part and parcel of this
  5. I'm no good with TA and in fact I've never used it much. That said, I think it's possible we see $4-5 over the next few weeks. I'm basing that not on technicals but XRP's almost criminally oversold price and the fact we won't hear much news from Ripple HQ while the lawsuit is continuing. It seems counter-intuitive but throwing a blanket over Ripple execs has helped the price a lot. I can't prove this obviously but I also wonder if some of the big market makers such as SBI have stopped or slowed down their XRP sales. They can sell millions with guaranteed 15-30% discounts at spot so taking
  6. I think that's right - it's unlikely the SEC would agree to a statement that says "XRP is not a security" but by the same measure, it would be unlikely for them to state in the settlement that they won't pursue secondary markets because it has nothing to do with their case against Ripple. The parties would simply set out the terms on which Ripple can and cannot sell XRP in the US market and the extent to which Ripple can and cannot supply XRP to 3rd parties to sell in the US market. Depending on how much leverage Ripple has, I expect they would want the SEC to make some type of declaratio
  7. A couple of years? Are you sure? SBI only recently signed an option to buy XRP from Ripple at 15-30% discounts off spot price and other market makers will have similar arrangements. The SBI deal runs until November this year. That was one welcome discovery coming out of this lawsuit for me as an investor. We've known about aggregate OTC sales and Jed's sales but it was a genuine eye-opener to see the terms of the SBI discounts and the daily volume caps. For me it puts to bed the conspiracy theory peddled by various Twitter personalities that there is some secret cabal of BTC maxis hell-be
  8. Yes - agreed. And I've given you credit for picking the Tetragon case. You haven't been right on the timings though. Discovery won't start until later in May. Settlement is therefore several months away unless you think a politically expedient settlement will be offered by the SEC. I think it will come down to each party testing the other side's case properly to assess the weaknesses and strengths and build leverage to take into the settlement negotiations. I'm pretty comfortable with the likely landing spot for this case. Win, lose or settle, I think the outcome for XRP and the XRPL its
  9. @HenrySeldom - you need to explain what a neutral assessment looks like if you think mine is pessimistic. I'm hoping to advance the debate. I think the onus is on you now to supply the following: Propose your alternative hypothesis. Explain what you think is really at stake for SEC if they lose. You may be aware the SEC just filed a new lawsuit against Library Coin. What does that lawsuit tell us about the SEC's intent towards crypto given that Jay Clayton, Hinman and their entire crew are no longer involved? Does it strike you strange that their departures failed
  10. Gary Gensler is on the record saying that in his view, Consensys, the Ethereum Foundation and founders were pre-allocated ETH prior to mainnet launch and because those parties were, and are fundamental to ETH's success, there is a serious question to be asked regarding sales of ETH by those parties. It doesn't mean that ETH itself is a security but does mean that specific sales may have amounted to securities offerings that were subject to the Securities Act. That line of reasoning doesn't help Ripple at all of course but it does have major ramifications for the market. Because if Ripple
  11. Isn't this call simply to decide on Ripple's request for the SEC to provide documents relating to ETH and BTC? They're still angling for the estoppel/fairness argument and need more evidence to support that. Of course, this material goes to John's case against the SEC and also affects everyone else involved in the litigation extravaganza that has followed the SEC prosecution. I'm guessing they're going to have to fight for it.
  12. These are the very questions being posed by Ripple in its Response. If you want an example of how the courts might view it, the Kik case sets out how the securities laws can apply to crypto projects.
  13. Crowd funding can easily cross over into securities laws depending on how it is marketed and what the expectations of investors is. It even has its own set of rules in the US to provide more flexibility: https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/regcrowdfunding There's no hard and fast rule that crowdfunding = sale of investment contract. But your example of comics is heading in that direction. You can just go back to Howey and check for yourself. Under the Howey test, an investment contract exists when there is: an investment of money in a common enterprise; with a re
  14. If you mean selling a mining licence or similar to a single miner to extract then no, that's not a security. But if the farmer goes on bitcoin.org and says: "Hey everyone! Want to buy some OIL tokens? I'm working on getting the infrastructure and pipes built out with the help of some big names! Can't tell you who - it's confidential. I'm so pumped about the future of OIL!", then you're heading towards an investment contract. Which is where Ripple has headed.
  15. You're gonna hate me for saying this, but the Securities Act of 1933 specifically defines interests in oil, gas and other mineral rights as securities:
×
×
  • 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.