Jump to content

Lawson Baker: XRP is a security. Ripple is the issuer.


flanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Reasonable regulation

All told, it seems that the SEC and other regulatory bodies have actually taken a very measured approach in this area - aggressively focusing on obvious fraudsters first in order to deter subsequent fraudsters, while letting the technology play out a bit in the wild.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiff's bar has been doing a good job picking up the slack in those instances when the SEC has not yet moved. See Davy v. Paragon Coin, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-00671 (N.D. Cal. January 30, 2018) and Paige v. Bitconnect Intern. PLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-58-JHM (W.D. Ky. January 29, 2018).

Recent indicators seem to back this interpretation of the SEC's ICO position.

On February 6, SEC chairman Jay Clayton acknowledged before the Senate Banking Committee that the potential derived from blockchain was "very significant." His co-witness, Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Christopher Giancarlo, went so far as to say there was "enormous potential" that "seems extraordinary" for blockchain-based businesses.

Yet, during his testimony, Chairman Clayton said the SEC would continue to "crack down hard" on fraud and manipulation involving ICOs offering an unregistered security. This is consistent with prior messaging given that Chairman Clayton requested on December 11 that the SEC's Enforcement Division "vigorously" enforce and recommend action against ICOs that may be in violation of the federal securities laws.

Chairman Clayton said the SEC was "working the beat hard" to crack down on ICOs, but chose not to answer a question posed of him by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, namely whether the SEC will "go back" and scrutinize earlier ICOs.

In other words, there may be some ICOs, like the one for BAT, that the SEC will not attack, notwithstanding Clayton's comment in the hearing that "every ICO I've seen is a security."

The prospect that some 2017 ICOs raising hundreds of millions of dollars will not be addressed by the SEC provides a clear "nudge wink" that not all ICOs come under SEC regulatory control.

As with XRP and BAT, in the future, there will likely be many more tokens built on disruptive blockchain initiatives that escape SEC scrutiny given they are not perceived as securities.

The fact that the SEC has not yet moved on them - despite moving against Munchee, Inc. weeks after the Munchee MUN offering - signals the SEC will temper its enforcement activities when faced with a disruptive blockchain initiative that begets true intrinsic value.

In other words, utility tokens may be a good idea after all.

https://www.coindesk.com/no-not-icos-securities/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phintech said:

Keep telling yourself cute little bedtime fairytales.  Maybe you’ll be a big boy in a few years and realize your childish rambling was a huge learning moment.

Simply pointing out the irony, or the unparalleled thinking.  I have full confidence that BG and management are aware of all securities issues.  I don’t rely on twitter for my securities advice. If for arguments sake it was ruled a security, I would run under the assumption that thier team would pivot focus (as seen in the past with xrapid use) to utilize that with some of the more institutionalized players in existence.  Thanks for the constructive and insightful “big boy” talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RDS said:

Or they are scared that no other coin is strong enough to offer $ 100 million in loans and million upfront. 

I think he should recoeve reply from some official source @TiffanyHayden@JoelKatz @miguel

I haven't gone through his whole series of tweets. He tagged me, and I replied to the first thing that caught my eye. I've already stumped him. He had to resort to quoting Jimmy Song from a few weeks when I had backed Jimmy into a corner for claiming that Ripple can "steal people's ripples," lol. I demanded he tell me how and Jimmy's final answer (that I had to pry out of him) was the config files on Ripple's website, hahahaha. If Lawson is waiting for Jimmy to help him out so he can reply back to me intelligently, he's going to be in for a looooong wait!

(I like Lawson, btw. For whatever that's worth.) 

 

Edited by TiffanyHayden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TiffanyHayden said:

I haven't gone through his whole series of tweets. He tagged me, and I replied to the first thing that caught my eye. I've already stumped him. He had to resort to quoting Jimmy Song from a few weeks when I had backed Jimmy into a corner for claiming that Ripple can "steal people's ripples," lol. I demanded he tell me how and Jimmy's final answer (that I had to pry out of him) was the config files on Ripple's website, hahahaha. If Lawson is waiting for Jimmy to help him out so he can reply back to me intelligently, he's going to be in for a looooong wait!

(I like Lawson, btw. For whatever that's worth.) 

 

Thanks @TiffanyHayden are u expecting any official reply from ripple about this whole stuff. Apparently coinbase doesnt seem to be acting peofessionally otherwise they wouldnt have leaked the info and practice which is followed all over and is not illegal too. Whats ur opinion abt it..??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That github comment was hilarious.

The argument  that "XRP is only for financial institutions" and "why would a normal person want XRP" isn't true at least in my case. I have personally used the XRP Ledger since 2013 to make payments overseas in a variety of currencies, including BTC. I wish I hadn't considering XRP prices now :lol:, but it's a good tool.

I'd really like to see Ryan Zagone's take on the securities issue.

https://twitter.com/RyanZagone

Edited by flanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RDS said:

Thanks @TiffanyHayden are u expecting any official reply from ripple about this whole stuff. Apparently coinbase doesnt seem to be acting peofessionally otherwise they wouldnt have leaked the info and practice which is followed all over and is not illegal too. Whats ur opinion abt it..??

I am baffled why any of this is a surprise to people. I made a few comments on Twitter. It's easier just to copy and paste them. I hope you don't mind. 

 

From January:

 

 

I can't say that I begrudge Coinbase for any of their decisions. They are looking out for their best interest, which is what businesses do. It's more disappointing that we as a community have let Coinbase get this large. Why haven't others stepped up to the plate? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point about R. Zagones take on RIpple being a security. The mere fact thst the IMF ,BOE,MAS among potential 20 or so central banks seriously looking at XRP. hints the fact they dont consider it a security. Im sure their dillegince is superior to ours.If there was even a question about it Zagone wouldnt be on advisory boards to payments. Optics would scream conflict of interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TiffanyHayden said:

I am baffled why any of this is a surprise to people.

As am I.  The article was, in my opinion, a non-story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only part of the Bloomberg story that surprised me was the fact Ripple offered a $100 million loan for Coinbase to integrate XRP.  I would have expected Ripple to offer $100 million of XRP as a payment (not a loan).

In fact, back in October 2017 (seems so long ago), I said as much.  Hopefully, the negotiations with Coinbase are not over.  Getting listed would still probably bring a good amount of liquidity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.