Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    I read stuff. I write stuff. I make stuff. I build stuff. I break stuff.

    Stuff in general really..
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Grand Poobah of Nothing

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Fazzyfocus's Achievements

  1. WOW!!! Not only are you incorrect, you are now flat out lying? no. it doesnt go to the validators. for someone that alludes to understand/know coding, you would already know this of course. But allow me to return the favour you so eloquently put forward... go find out yourself what that 20xrp is for and how it works. Because right now you dont understand.
  2. 11'000 plus lines of code on XRPL. you make an allegation that validators running that code are profiting from it. you then refuse to point to that line of code. I'll skip beyond the benefit of the doubt and go STRAIGHT to the abuse because you deserve it. your troll game is weak. f*** off
  3. where is the specific line of code or evidence that you have which shows validators make money? you have posted a link to the dev portal which doesnt prove anything of the sort.
  4. The problem with your later justification is you chose to make what would be perceived as a sarcastic accusation in the first instance as it lacked context and foundation.. When questioned on it, rather than explain, your posts then doubled down on your opinion again without the context and facts surrounding your position. All this on a thread that had already quickly devolved into attacking Tiff. Make an accusation against anyone in an environment where that individual already has recognition for contribution (irrespective whether some perceive him/her/them as argumentative) then frankly you do so with truth and evidence or EXPECT to be ridiculed. The above isnt bullying. Its common sense.
  5. It was actually done as a gentlemanly courtesy. But do feel free to interpret as you please.
  6. For the record by the way. I don't hate lobbyists. I hate specific causes behind lobbying on occasion but that is like saying you hate everyone that advocates for change. Change can be for the better or worse. Lobbyists for the NRA? Yes that is stupidity. They ahve plenty of power and america has enough gun deaths already Lobbyists for philanthropy? Hardly applicable in the same boat. Painting all with the same brush because they use the same tools is not wise when the agendas are different. Its a little short sighted.
  7. I'm fairly certain that is what is described in professional circles as a "Mic drop". Lucky. Fudbusting fudspreaders since 2010 inc.
  8. It's the very definition of a conflict of interest. A statement of the nature already given by Hester Pierce is already a fine line. She would absolutely be aware of the cases and would know that a statement of that nature which all but mentions ripple is likely to be the furthest she could go politically without rocking the boat between SEC and DoJ as it's a public statement. EDIT: it's what is known as separation of power. That's the crux of it.
  9. Fair points, however I think (from a legal perspective at least) you might be underestimating the power of the courts. The scenario when you look at the bigger picture outside the realms of the SEC and the CTFC is multiple individuals (rightly or wrongly) have made an allegation of improper financial conduct through the courts. This opens up the remit of the department of justice. Given this is the first type of case of its kind, the implications are pretty serious in the absence of a legal definition through congress in the form of legislation. (Let's assume TTA doesn't pass before the cases come to trial for the purposes of this discussion). In this scenario, whilst I would normally agree that the SEC would not take a "consultancy" style role to the DoJ normally, I believe here...They will be forced to. Trial should consider evidence from both sides AND guidance from the SEC before the DoJ can make an informed and correct interpretation of laws that exist now (securities trading) whilst being aware that these kind of assets are in the procrss of being regulated. The point is, this is the first case of its kind. The result of this will set precedent either opening the floodgates for Any one and everyone to sue ripple OR (more likely) shut that specific door for that specific legal action in the event of a not guilty verdict.
  10. For the record. Hester Maria Peirce is a Woman. Not a Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hester_Peirce Whist she might be attempting to close the door on early hard and fast rules, the allusion is enough to help Ripple and Mary Jo White set a new precedent in court that XRP is not a security. The nuanced approach is one thing. A legal case is another. The ruling won't neccesarily determine what XRP is, but it likely will determine what it ISN'T.
  11. Possibly I guess. Personally? I would prefer it getting nailed by summary judgement in court leaving absolutely no room for confusion in the future. Nail the matter. Close it once and for all and shut the door on even the thought of a future lawsuit being a consideration down this specific path for any one. Case closed. Literally.
  12. It may be worth you reading the statement in full. there is a lot more context in there. e.g: "Yet many of these projects begin in a centralized manner that looks about the same as any other start-up. A group of people get together to build something and they need to find investors to fund their efforts so they sell securities, sometimes called tokens. The SEC applies existing securities laws to these securities offerings, which means that they must be conducted in accordance with the securities laws or under an exemption. When the tokens are not being sold as investment contracts, however, they are not securities at all. Tokens sold for use in a functioning network, rather than as investment contracts, fall outside the definition of securities" That to me SCREAMS of Ripple sales to FI's for the purposes of creating liquidity in a functioning network.
  13. Not legally binding, but a statement of this kind all but "excuses" ripple in the upcoming cases. It certainly reads as though SEC are now beginning to understand DA's/DLT/Blockchain and the implications of how networks/network effects make a token not a security: Link to the full transcript here: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-regulation-view-inside-machine
  • 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.