Jump to content

A Former Top Wall Street Regulator Turns to the Blockchain


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/technology/gensler-mit-blockchain.html

Mr. Gensler is set to say in a speech at M.I.T. on Monday that the second and third most widely used virtual currencies, Ether and Ripple, have most likely been issued and traded in violation of American securities regulations.

“There is a strong case for both of them — but particularly Ripple — that they are noncompliant securities,” he said in an interview. He believes Bitcoin, the original virtual currency, can remain exempt from securities regulations.

 

 

so there's pressure coming from a lot of directions now aye?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, AlexCobb said:

He is most likely not talking about Ripple, because Ripple is compliant with all banking regulation that's why Santander is currently using xCurrent

He is talking about Ripple but his point on regulation was concerning XRP.  Xcurrent does not use XRP so is not at risk of regulatory control.

Ripple have a great future with or without XRP, but of course if they both succeed it is better for all of us.

Edited by stickmonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LordVetinari said:

@mandelbaum I'm not concerned with the author of this article, rather Gary Gensler, who Popper is quoting.

It's important to understand where both sides of the "Bithomp - Ripple tools.securities" debate stand and how they've reached their particular positions.

Again, I'm posting this article because it's obvious this article will be the source of many future comments. It is FUD fodder which can be used to both prop up BTC, and try to hinder XRP. 

 

Absolutely agree. It´s just important to look at the back-story. Popper is going to have some questions lodged at him on Twitter about the angling of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xrphilosophy said:

Thanks for the post.  If XRP were to be classified as a security I believe what this means is that it would not be allowed on UNregulated exchanges.  All regulated exchanges will buy and sell securitized tokens.  It means a shift in the "legitimacy" of the XRP token from a regulatory standpoint to almost 'more legitimate'.  This is my understanding.  I don't see that harming XRP in the least.  Any thoughts on this?  

This ^ ^. There would be a short-term hit taken from the FUD factor as panicky retail speculators cash out. Ripple would be forced to go via regulated exchanges and they could then get listed on one of the big ones - CME, CBOE etc, whichever is the appropriate one based on classification. That opens the floodgates for the institutional pile-in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mrsrippley said:

The price goes up and the FUD comes out. Cory Johnson stated very clearly that XRP is absolutely not a security, however, even it it was it would only be a short term glitch and we would prosper on the regulated exchanges anyway. I might tweet Ben Lawsky later and see what his opinion is lol.

Perhaps this is what Coinbase is waiting for?  Would this have any effect on the oveseas exchanges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When silver metal prices were being manipulated downwards a decade ago, it was the same Gary Gensler who was at the helm of CFTC.  During his long tenure as chairman, no implications were ever brought against the banks who had worked collusively to suppress metal prices (refer to whistle blower Andrew Maguire and long time advocate Ted Butler).  As ex-banker, Gary often caves in to the big banks and against the little guy on the street (ie., small time silver speculator) even though he would appear to be acting in the interest of working against fraud and corruption.

Now it appears that the same Gensler is requested to provide his independent views on which token constitutes a security and subject to securities regulation and law.  I can only think that he will act in accordance to the desires of the big banks again ... and based on article, he is definitely a proponent of Bitcoin type tokens but against all others (eg., ETH, XRP) ...

I'd like some securities lawyer or other professionals to chime in on the implications of XRP if it is deemed as a security ...

Edited by bookworm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gensler, 60, has recently gone to work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he will write and teach about the potential he sees for blockchains to change the financial world. He will also use his position to warn about how many of the current projects in the world of virtual currencies, including some of the biggest, are likely to face a significant moment of reckoning with regulators.

So he was the chairman of CFTC until 2014 and did absolutely nothing on this side, but now that he became a lame a** lecturer at MIT, he wants to warn people about ETH and XRP.. I am sorry, this just cracks me up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ed1 said:

Gensler, 60, has recently gone to work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he will write and teach about the potential he sees for blockchains to change the financial world. He will also use his position to warn about how many of the current projects in the world of virtual currencies, including some of the biggest, are likely to face a significant moment of reckoning with regulators.

So he was the chairman of CFTC until 2014 and did absolutely nothing on this side, but now that he became a lame a** lecturer at MIT, he wants to warn people about ETH and XRP.. I am sorry, this just cracks me up.

 

Just the kind of thing that Bitcoin shill Popper would latch on to.  The Times editors need to be made aware of Popper's agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They try to describe the new economy with old economy terms. Won't work, they have to start thinking ahead and in new terms.

Otherwise the lawyer talk will never end.

Speaking of which, Bitcoin is listed on futures exchanges.

Commodities or futures contracts are not securities, but an option on that contract is considered a security, since the performance is now dependent on the activities of a third party.

So... might Bitcoin be a security?

No one knows and will ever know.

Treat these digital tokens as new, different (asset) classes.

They're sure not a security in the traditional sense of the term.

 

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.