Jump to content

Paradox

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Paradox

  • Rank
    Advanced

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yes and no. Large banks are often an amalgam of legal entities arranged in different types of ownership structures. Certain legal entities may hold the actual banking license while other legal entities in the corporate structure solely perform marketing activities or back-office services. I’ll try to keep this as high level as possible but from a legal standpoint, the legal entity that holds the banking license (I.e. the entity carrying out the actual banking activity) doesn’t need to hold XRP directly, but can still own and utilize it through a subsidiary, other affiliate, or third-party. Here is an example: McRipple Bank is a large US bank and is comprised of three separate legal entities - McRipple USA Inc., McRipple XRP LLC, and McRipple India Pvt. Ltd. McRipple USA Inc. Is the legal entity within the structure that holds the banking license/charter, McRipple XRP LLC is a separate legal entity that exists solely to custody McRipple’s XRP assets, and McRipple India Pvt. Ltd provides customer support for McRipple Bank’s US based customers. McRipple USA Inc can implement a service agreement with its non-regulated subsidiary McRipple XRP LLC whereby McRipple XRP LLC either holds McRipple USA’s XRP on its behalf, and/or assists McRipple USA Inc to facilitate international payments with the XRP it holds. Structuring it this way may avoid any conflicts that could jeopardize the main banking entity’s license or charter. In this example does the entity that is actually carrying out the banking activity itself directly hold the XRP? No. But they are holding it indirectly elsewhere in their corporate structure. Hope this helps people understand a little bit about large banks and corporations structure their operations.
  2. I think there also needs to be a push for a third rail (and there might already be in several corridors) - the infrastructure rail. Ripple will still need to rely on these digital asset exchanges to handle one leg of the payment. Ripple isn't in the digital asset exchange building business so they may need to rely on others to fulfill this aspect. A second way would be to rely on a market maker who is willing to facilitate xRapid payments into and out of destinations where no digital asset exchange exists. I have a feeling this will eventually happen, if it isn't already.
  3. It's also important to remember xRapid isn't entirely dependent on clients signing up for it. The infrastructure for each corridor also has to be set up/exist (e.g. xRapid-linked exchanges dealing in fiat and/or the existence of market makers).
  4. I have nothing against you personally. However, if you make blatantly ridiculous statements I'm going to call you out on it. We have enough misinformation and disinformation on here as it is.
  5. Was looking for this as well. "Prove they're not giving it away" is probably one of the most absurd things I have heard on this forum. The ignorance on here can be astounding at times.
  6. I know it may seem like a long time to you and me, but the speed this process is moving at is fairly typical of the US court system. In terms of this speed being beneficial, it is hard to say. On one hand, the longer the case takes, the more time the general public (and any presiding judges) has to become aware and learn about this technology and its uses outside of the Silk Road-esque use cases that have been typically associated with Crypto, which IMO is a net positive. On the other hand, I’m sure Ripple would like to resolve this case quickly so that the company can have one less thing to worry about/explain. An additional factor that I think gets overlooked are the optics of the case (I know some people may argue optics shouldn’t matter in court but I live in the real world). One of the main plaintiffs is spending tens of thousands of dollars chasing a ~$500 loss on XRP by suing numerous respected individuals from both the business world and academia (including Susan Athey, who is a John Bates Clark medal recipient). Time will tell what the outcome will be, but I will tell you this - I don’t lose one wink of sleep over this lawsuit.
  7. Ripple cannot prevent people from listing XRP
  8. I have a feeling you'll be waiting quite a while to "see what the SEC thinks about it". Not that it really matters anyway, since the SEC does not create law or make "rulings". Any legal designations will be decided by a court, not by the SEC.
  9. Ripple can talk to the SEC to avoid future enforcement actions by the SEC, but this will have little to no impact on "what the law comes out as", because that will depend on the ruling of the court. Technically, the SEC can still attempt to bring an enforcement action against Ripple even after a court rules XRP to not be a security, but that scenario is unlikely. (1) it would be very expensive for the SEC, which has limited resources and has so far directed them towards obvious scams/frauds and (2) the initial Federal court case would establish a precedent for XRP's status as a non-security under US law, and statistically judges are unlikely to overturn a clearly established precedent when dealing with cases involving identical or highly-similar issues. Edit: Tagging @itcdominic
  10. I am starting to get exasperated here. @musclehog @Caracappa - The SEC does not issue rulings. Full stop. There will be no "ruling" on XRP provided by the SEC. They may offer an opinion or "guidance" in the form of a letter that describes their position on XRP, but any declarations or opinions offered do not constitute law. I repeat, the SEC does not make the law. Whether or not XRP is a security will be decided IN COURT, not by the SEC. I understand most people here don't have a legal background, but in my opinion it is vital to take the time to fully understand how the SEC actually functions and the enforcement powers granted to it, as well as US legal procedures with respect to securities law.
  11. Multi-hop is a definite possibility here, although I'm still not convinced XRP is being used. It is more likely that SCB is maintaining fiat accounts in CLMV local currencies and using them to facilitate payments on behalf of xVia customers in those countries: Additional reasons being that we haven't seen any evidence of xRapid infrastructure or relationships built yet in CLMV corridors.
  12. The article mentions "CLMV countries" aka Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Unless there are exchanges or market makers offering KHR/XRP, LAK/XRP, MMK/XRP, or VND/XRP, I don't see how this could be xRapid. Currently I'm not aware of the existence of those pairings. My guess would be that this is most likely xCurrent.
  13. The SEC doesn’t make rulings, their job is to “enforce” the existing securities law. In my personal opinion, if the SEC wanted to bring an enforcement action against Ripple regarding XRP (which would then leave it up to a court to provide the actual ruling), they would have done so already. Furthermore, public opinions or “guidance” provided by SEC does not constitute actual law. It is merely a statement of the agency’s position. Like any government agency, the SEC has limited resources at its disposal. Going after Ripple/XRP would not only be a very expensive endeavor, it is also not a clear cut and dry case from a securities law perspective. The SEC is much more likely to spend their resources going after ACTUAL scams and blatantly fraudulent ICOs etc.
  14. I agree with the notion that "todaysgazette", "dailyhodl", and "oracletimes" are absolute garbage news sites. I also commend your dedication to trolling both on here and Twitter. Couldn't think of a better use of ones time.
×
×
  • Create New...