Jump to content

For those worried about XRP being classed as a security


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If they use the Howey Test, there's no way it's a security. I'm worried about the Howie Test, though...

Cobalt is really just an update of the consensus mechanism at the heart of the XRPL. It turns out that in the presence of untrustworthy (byzantine) nodes, then the XRP ledger is not as theoretically s

Posted Images

Not a great rebuke actually. Some misunderstandings and incorrect facts. I’ll play devil's advocate.

 

1. Wording does not strictly matter although it can be an aggravating factor against a defendant, we hear this myth a lot that if I sell you a security and tell you it is income or a donation, or tell you it doesn't represent an investment then all is fine and good with the SEC, not true. However it's not accurate anyway to say no member of Ripple has promoted XRP as an investment or discussed pricing and speculation, it may not be the ‘policy’ today but in the past they have. And quite recently Joel Katz was on Twitter whooping about prices. The fact that does definitely matter here though is that there has been an investment of money, end of story, if you buy Ripple there is an investment of money, and additionally Ripple has not been averse to selling XRP OTC in the past either.

2. Ripple have indeed stated that XRP will, or they expect it to go up in value numerous times over the years. I don’t think they ever ‘promised’ but a promise is not really relevant.

3. It doesn't have to be people buying XRP of an exchange is funding Ripple directly. Fact is when they distribute XRP (and i assume everyone agrees that they should) the parties they distribute it to will sell it at some point, hence they are indirectly selling a security, particularly when the firms they say they will distribute it to will be using it in that way and given it as reward. This doesn’t really matter of course, because Ripple has sold copious amounts of XRP OTC, they have made numerous statements saying it is in their interests that the price of XRP rises, and they funded the platform’s early development off the sale of XRP and have basically said quite a few times that the success of XRP is tied to the company’s success.

4. I somewhat agree with this one but those OTC sales could be considered price setting.


 

(a Might insulate the directors and the company, but doesn’t insulate the asset from classification, which is what matters right, i assume you hold XRP and not ripple shares. Besides which they have already been reprimanded and fined for selling XRP otc, to roger ver and others as ripple the company, so I don’t think FinCen agrees.

 

(b Sales of XRP are not perfectly legal, please see Ripple Labs Vs FinCEN.

 

(C could be the argument, indeed it is the one every fly-by-night ICO is hanging its hopes on, but we have yet to see it tested. I think howies oranges groves had a use case too though right, you could grow stuff in them, and eat the oranges. Didn't really help.

 

(D actually here you make an argument FOR XRP being classed as a security not against. If XRP is not wholly required to use Ripple and not intrinsic to the ledger, then what is it? A security? It's better if something is essential here.

 

E) Yeh it’s always helpful to be friends with the right people, can’t argue there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Robbieboy said:

Not a great rebuke actually. Some misunderstandings and incorrect facts. I’ll play devil's advocate.

 

1. Wording does not strictly matter although it can be an aggravating factor against a defendant, we hear this myth a lot that if I sell you a security and tell you it is income or a donation, or tell you it doesn't represent an investment then all is fine and good with the SEC, not true. However it's not accurate anyway to say no member of Ripple has promoted XRP as an investment or discussed pricing and speculation, it may not be the ‘policy’ today but in the past they have. And quite recently Joel Katz was on Twitter whooping about prices. The fact that does definitely matter here though is that there has been an investment of money, end of story, if you buy Ripple there is an investment of money, and additionally Ripple has not been averse to selling XRP OTC in the past either.

2. Ripple have indeed stated that XRP will, or they expect it to go up in value numerous times over the years. I don’t think they ever ‘promised’ but a promise is not really relevant.

3. It doesn't have to be people buying XRP of an exchange is funding Ripple directly. Fact is when they distribute XRP (and i assume everyone agrees that they should) the parties they distribute it to will sell it at some point, hence they are indirectly selling a security, particularly when the firms they say they will distribute it to will be using it in that way and given it as reward. This doesn’t really matter of course, because Ripple has sold copious amounts of XRP OTC, they have made numerous statements saying it is in their interests that the price of XRP rises, and they funded the platform’s early development off the sale of XRP and have basically said quite a few times that the success of XRP is tied to the company’s success.

4. I somewhat agree with this one but those OTC sales could be considered price setting.


 

(a Might insulate the directors and the company, but doesn’t insulate the asset from classification, which is what matters right, i assume you hold XRP and not ripple shares. Besides which they have already been reprimanded and fined for selling XRP otc, to roger ver and others as ripple the company, so I don’t think FinCen agrees.

 

(b Sales of XRP are not perfectly legal, please see Ripple Labs Vs FinCEN.

 

(C could be the argument, indeed it is the one every fly-by-night ICO is hanging its hopes on, but we have yet to see it tested. I think howies oranges groves had a use case too though right, you could grow stuff in them, and eat the oranges. Didn't really help.

 

(D actually here you make an argument FOR XRP being classed as a security not against. If XRP is not wholly required to use Ripple and not intrinsic to the ledger, then what is it? A security? It's better if something is essential here.

 

E) Yeh it’s always helpful to be friends with the right people, can’t argue there.

C is the argument...and there is no applicable precedent given the nature of the tech...

imo the horse is out of the barn already...the marketplace will be regulated but regulation won't kill the tech, only the worst actors will be affected...if anything curtails it, it'll be legislation

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robbieboy said:

Not a great rebuke actually. Some misunderstandings and incorrect facts. I’ll play devil's advocate.

 

1. Wording does not strictly matter although it can be an aggravating factor against a defendant, we hear this myth a lot that if I sell you a security and tell you it is income or a donation, or tell you it doesn't represent an investment then all is fine and good with the SEC, not true. However it's not accurate anyway to say no member of Ripple has promoted XRP as an investment or discussed pricing and speculation, it may not be the ‘policy’ today but in the past they have. And quite recently Joel Katz was on Twitter whooping about prices. The fact that does definitely matter here though is that there has been an investment of money, end of story, if you buy Ripple there is an investment of money, and additionally Ripple has not been averse to selling XRP OTC in the past either.

2. Ripple have indeed stated that XRP will, or they expect it to go up in value numerous times over the years. I don’t think they ever ‘promised’ but a promise is not really relevant.

3. It doesn't have to be people buying XRP of an exchange is funding Ripple directly. Fact is when they distribute XRP (and i assume everyone agrees that they should) the parties they distribute it to will sell it at some point, hence they are indirectly selling a security, particularly when the firms they say they will distribute it to will be using it in that way and given it as reward. This doesn’t really matter of course, because Ripple has sold copious amounts of XRP OTC, they have made numerous statements saying it is in their interests that the price of XRP rises, and they funded the platform’s early development off the sale of XRP and have basically said quite a few times that the success of XRP is tied to the company’s success.

4. I somewhat agree with this one but those OTC sales could be considered price setting.


 

(a Might insulate the directors and the company, but doesn’t insulate the asset from classification, which is what matters right, i assume you hold XRP and not ripple shares. Besides which they have already been reprimanded and fined for selling XRP otc, to roger ver and others as ripple the company, so I don’t think FinCen agrees.

 

(b Sales of XRP are not perfectly legal, please see Ripple Labs Vs FinCEN.

 

(C could be the argument, indeed it is the one every fly-by-night ICO is hanging its hopes on, but we have yet to see it tested. I think howies oranges groves had a use case too though right, you could grow stuff in them, and eat the oranges. Didn't really help.

 

(D actually here you make an argument FOR XRP being classed as a security not against. If XRP is not wholly required to use Ripple and not intrinsic to the ledger, then what is it? A security? It's better if something is essential here.

 

E) Yeh it’s always helpful to be friends with the right people, can’t argue there.

Zerpules argument was very clearly stated and made sense . 

Your rebuke on the other hand is just impossible to understand gibberish.

 I would like to see you or anyone else spurt that in a court of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blockchained said:

Zerpules argument was very clearly stated and made sense . 

Your rebuke on the other hand is just impossible to understand gibberish.

 I would like to see you or anyone else spurt that in a court of law.

Made perfect sense to me. He wasnt writing it for a court of law. He was writing to get his points across. And i understood them. 

One needs to look at both sides of the argument to make the right decision rather than living in an echo chamber of identical opinions. 

I dont agree with many of his points but me or you dont have to. Its good to see what arguments the SEC will be contending with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Robbieboy said:

If XRP is not wholly required to use Ripple and not intrinsic to the ledger, then what is it?

Exactly, and this is a technical question that I have raised a couple of days ago. In the past, when some say ILP does not require XRP, thus XRP is a scam, the response is always the same: call it FUD and state that XRP is the only native asset on ILP,  so it is the cheapest and quickest way to use ILP. @Hodor used the cargo container analogy, just last month.

I posed this same point yesterday, and was now told @Graine that XRP is NOT required for ILP and xRapid. If this is true then XRP truly has no specific use case, making the suit valid.

Does anyone know if XRP is truly the only coin that is native to Ripple Labs' ILP, thus being the container for all others to utilize in xborder payments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Does anyone know if XRP is truly the only coin that is native to Ripple Labs' ILP, thus being the container for all others to utilize in xborder payments?

Seeing how people like to doubt my words, or not willing to google up the interviews where @justmoon, or @JoelKatz or any other RL employee clearly states that ILP (as well as Codius) does not have a "native token" and is, in fact, currency agnostic. 

I am tagging @mDuo13 in case he'll be more likely to respond on the questions raised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graine said:

Seeing how people like to doubt my words, or not willing to google up the interviews where @justmoon, or @JoelKatz or any other RL employee clearly states that ILP (as well as Codius) does not have a "native token" and is, in fact, currency agnostic. 

I am tagging @mDuo13 in case he'll be more likely to respond on the questions raised. 

 I have always preferred that individual RL employees do not publicly discuss XRP, especially now in the current atmosphere. 

Your understanding of XRP and Ripple interviews requires that we concede there is no unique use case for XRP? Ripple simply has“...Billions reasons that they would like the price to go up” to quote other recently poor interviews with a high ranking member of Ripple, that you may have missed.

Perhaps in my laymen terms: Are all Drops unique and/or serial numbered. This being built into the encryption protocol, so that no additional XRP can ever be created? This would also imply that all transactions must rely on the serial numbers in order for validating nodes to decrypt and come to consensus? Otherwise we truly are trading bags full of ether. (No not ETH) 

i believe you are misunderstanding the fact that ILP is open source, and others can create their own native coin, build a network of validators and enjoy the benefits. This is how we got Stellar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that this is more a question of practicality regarding innovation... it seems the U.S. is falling behind in the regulatory sphere and will have to follow he leaders in the crypto-legislation process or risk losing the utility of the Ripple system if (when) it is widely adopted.

The United States faces the serious possibility of lagging technically behind if their regulation is at odds with the rest of the world, IMO.

Link to post
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
×
×
  • 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.