Jump to content

For those worried about XRP being classed as a security


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

I have always preferred that individual RL employees do not publicly discuss XRP,

I have always preferred that RL employees do discuss XRP publicly, so that there can be no misconception of 'native tokens' in  a currency agnostic protocol.  

 

28 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Your understanding of XRP and Ripple interviews requires that we concede there is no unique use case for XRP?

We have to define 'unique' for the argument. 
In the beginning, Ripple wanted banks to use XRP Ledger and XRP. Banks didn't want it (JK's words). Then they made ILP, but with a caveat, that if they ever wanted to use XRP, they could use xRapid (which was said to 'uniquely' use XRP). But it turned out, that 'uniquely' is the same as 'blockchain based Ripple solution', that is not based on any blockchain at all  (xCurrent/ILP). 

 

34 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Ripple simply has“...Billions reasons that they would like the price to go up”

And good morning to you too. 
There is a reason why FIs bought 1/10th of what Ripple gloriously bestowed upon the average joe, that wouldn't even be worthy to give their money for Ripple's equity (offense still taken, Brad). 

 

36 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

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) 

@nickb or @JoelKatz have previously addressed that question. Seems like Nick deleted his xrpchat profile?Oo

 

 

38 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

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.

We should be careful in what we call 'native token' to avoid further misunderstanding. 
The moment ILP creates some sort of invariant token you have to use to be able to use the protocol, it will lose its universal appeal. 
ILP is not a blockchain. 

The appeal of XRP is 1) Ripple - as a developer - has a temporal (not temporary, though some may disagree) advantage of positioning XRP as a prime bridging asset due to XRP qualities and - more importantly - the fact that Ripple wants to convert all that XRP into fiat. 

With ILP you can hook up any crypto (see Stefan's work on BTC LN and ETH bridges), now that xRapid allows for other crypto, SBI could route xRapid volume though BCH (which they expressed interest in). 

So now, for XRP to succeed, an FI will have to chose to use it twice: first for xRapid, and second for XRP out of the pool of suitable candidates. It's no longer you can't not use XRP if you use xRapid. 

There are faster assets, than XRP. LN for btc will offer superior liquidity and payment speed. But even XLM could be chosen to be a vehicle for xRapid, if an FI choses so. 
I think Jed - with his everlasting copy-paste mood - and his friends at IBM could very well make something like it. Or simply build a plugin for XLM/ILP.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

@Graine, as was stated earlier this week by @mDuo13, yes its theoretically possible for xRapid to to use assets other than XRP.  However, in its current state it always uses XRP.   In addition, I don't see the incentive for Ripple to use any asset other than XRP?    BTC having more liquidity (today, comparatively to XRP) is a moot point, as even BTC's liquidity still isn't sufficient enough to handle major FI transaction volume.  

Furthermore, LN still has major issues to work out, and is in no way ready for enterprise use.    I don't have a crystal ball, but my money is still on XRP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2018 at 12:34 AM, 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.

Yeh I'm sorry I didn't write more eloquently,  I'm a bit busy. I wouldn't worry too much though, I think Ripple will end up getting some sort of a pass. They might have to kiss a bit more ass or make some changes but they are quite important to the US entry into the crypto space, I doubt they want to destroy their largest and most corporate crypto firm, that wouldn't be good business practice. California might be a pain in the backside but one thing they know how to do is keep tech innovators in the state.

I'm no lawyer but I have studied US securities law quite extensively last year, going right to the acts and cases themselves and built a massive spreadsheet along with a researcher friend of mine where we played out various scenarios over several months. I guess crypto makes you become a securities lawyer...an accountant...and a tax expert, not by choice lol but hey if there's noone else you have to do things for yourself. This was primarily to examine Ethereum and various ICOs but we applied it to Ripple too and the Ripple case is a little sketchy, as is Ethereum actually. When you go to the fine print you begin to realise that in some sense they can say whatever they like is a security, its all very loosely worded and open to interpretation, the howie test probably isn't enough to save you, even if you can pass it. 

I just think it will be interesting to see how it will all play out, one also worth bearing in mind is that the SECs prime directive is to protect investors, now if they declared XRP a security at this point that would cause a ton of damage to the people they are supposed to protect. Another is that the US government agencies don't always agree. If they declare it a security that takes jurisdiction away from FinCEN somewhat or any other agency that wants a piece, and if they say those who hold XRP now are no longer allowed to cash in, then the IRS won't be too pleased because there goes a ton of tax. So there's gonna be a lot of backstage wrangling over who gets what piece of the pie. There's also the 'don't stifle innovation' argument which translates to 'Russia and China could get in on this boom and leave us for dust and that wouldn't be good because we want our economy to boom from this and not theirs and we also want to control it not them'. I don't think they US are that dumb, they know the colour of money, they had a fine time controlling the internet for the past 20 years and they will want a good solid piece of this too

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Paradox said:

I don't see the incentive for Ripple to use any asset other than XRP?

It's not about Ripple's incentive. An FI is calling the shots with what parts of the solution they are going to use. And if an FI wants to settle in BCH or XLM, there is no technical obstacle to prevent it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Graine said:

It's not about Ripple's incentive. An FI is calling the shots with what parts of the solution they are going to use. And if an FI wants to settle in BCH or XLM, there is no technical obstacle to prevent it. 

While you are correct there is no technical obstacle to prevent it, I don't think you can dismiss Ripple's incentive here.   Why offer a service that could contribute to rendering 60b of your assets worthless?   Does an FI care exactly how liquidity is sourced, as long as their desired transaction goes through quickly and at low cost?   Maybe, maybe not.  

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

Yeh I'm sorry I didn't write more eloquently,  I'm a bit busy. I wouldn't worry too much though, I think Ripple will end up getting some sort of a pass. They might have to kiss a bit more ass or make some changes but they are quite important to the US entry into the crypto space, I doubt they want to destroy their largest and most corporate crypto firm, that wouldn't be good business practice. California might be a pain in the backside but one thing they know how to do is keep tech innovators in the state.

I'm no lawyer but I have studied US securities law quite extensively last year, going right to the acts and cases themselves and built a massive spreadsheet along with a researcher friend of mine where we played out various scenarios over several months. I guess crypto makes you become a securities lawyer...an accountant...and a tax expert, not by choice lol but hey if there's noone else you have to do things for yourself. This was primarily to examine Ethereum and various ICOs but we applied it to Ripple too and the Ripple case is a little sketchy, as is Ethereum actually. When you go to the fine print you begin to realise that in some sense they can say whatever they like is a security, its all very loosely worded and open to interpretation, the howie test probably isn't enough to save you, even if you can pass it. 

I just think it will be interesting to see how it will all play out, one also worth bearing in mind is that the SECs prime directive is to protect investors, now if they declared XRP a security at this point that would cause a ton of damage to the people they are supposed to protect. Another is that the US government agencies don't always agree. If they declare it a security that takes jurisdiction away from FinCEN somewhat or any other agency that wants a piece, and if they say those who hold XRP now are no longer allowed to cash in, then the IRS won't be too pleased because there goes a ton of tax. So there's gonna be a lot of backstage wrangling over who gets what piece of the pie. There's also the 'don't stifle innovation' argument which translates to 'Russia and China could get in on this boom and leave us for dust and that wouldn't be good because we want our economy to boom from this and not theirs and we also want to control it not them'. I don't think they US are that dumb, they know the colour of money, they had a fine time controlling the internet for the past 20 years and they will want a good solid piece of this too

Up to now there is no rules , no regulation , no laws , it’s the wild west . On what ground would you sue ? 

But regulation is coming and it has to if you want institutional money to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JTxrPP said:

@Graine, what are your thoughts on Cobalt and its implications for XRP. And how does it stack up with Lighting? thanks in advance.

We will cross that bridge when we get there. No use discussing it until it's implemented. Which is 1y+ from now. 

 

19 minutes ago, Paradox said:

 Why offer a service that could contribute to rendering 60b of your assets worthless?

Why did they offer xCurrent then? :)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Graine said:

We will cross that bridge when we get there. No use discussing it until it's implemented. Which is 1y+ from now. 

 

Why did they offer xCurrent then? :)
 

Different solution for a different problem :)    Surely you can see the onboarding value of offering a client stepped pathway to implenting this new technology.....

Fiat first, then digital assets.  I actually see xCurrent not as a threat to XRP but the perfect gateway.   I enjoy your contrarian views though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blockchained said:

Up to now there is no rules , no regulation , no laws , it’s the wild west . On what ground would you sue ? 

But regulation is coming and it has to if you want institutional money to come.

I dont see institutional money coming in with any regularity.

Hacks, crashes, liquidity, trash exchanges why would people invest billions?

We will see though :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mods_are_tyrants said:

I dont see institutional money coming in with any regularity.

Hacks, crashes, liquidity, trash exchanges why would people invest billions?

We will see though :)

 

 

not yet, but the sheriff's coming to clean up the town

even some of the "suspicious" exchanges like poloniex are getting acquired

we are ofc all waiting for SBI to "do it right" and add some serious volume

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Graine said:


There is a reason why FIs bought 1/10th of what Ripple gloriously bestowed upon the average joe, that wouldn't even be worthy to give their money for Ripple's equity (offense still taken, Brad). 

 

It sounds like you're sore about something, but I don't understand what it could be. You know that Ripple is privately held just like a ton of other companies. As far the 1/10 purchased by FIs we are still early in the game.

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.