Jump to content
zach

SEC Chairman Clayton’s view on crypto currency and how Ripple may come to regret their “asset” title

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking that it has been nice the past couple of days- not much trolling, news I really like happening right now in Japan, and reading crazy **** on the bearable guy thread. But no. Did you know trolls can live a week without their heads? Wait, that's cockroaches....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deeznutz said:

I was just thinking that it has been nice the past couple of days- not much trolling, news I really like happening right now in Japan, and reading crazy **** on the bearable guy thread. But no. Did you know trolls can live a week without their heads? Wait, that's cockroaches....

Until the lion learns how to write, the story will glorify the hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think OP is FUDing. I am the furthest thing from a fudder and the SEC chairmans comments rubbed me the wrong way. It seems 99% of people viewed what he said as a good thing, but I am not so sure. In no uncertain terms he basically said cryptocurrencies are not securities and digital assets are. I kept asking myself why he said digital assets... Anyway, calling it a digital asset doesnt make it a security, but I did find it peculiar phrasing on the chairmans part since Ripple is the biggest party referring to their related crypto as a digital asset..

I am not really worried, BUT, it is noteworthy language.

Edited by Trader-to-the-Crown

Share this post


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

I would question good reputation. In civilisation - be it the workplace, school, or anywhere else for that matter - good reputation creates visions of dignity, integrity, inclusiveness. Not bashing someone’s first post or speech whatever it may be, because we don’t agree with it. Hardly good character

Jeeeez... It was not about you, Zachariah. /s

You created a vision of dignity, integrity and inclusiveness with your really "good, constructive, and inclusive comments" until now, so let me add you to my VIP ignored list. Congrats. Bye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"May" being the key word coming out of SEC's mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolls, contrary to what they would like to think, are orderly, predictable, and simplistic. Right now, you're on I believe, step four- waffling between sarcasm and a contrived image of persecution. Added to the wretched hive of scum and villainy known as my ignore list. Have an extra special, blessed day. Buh bye now. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trader-to-the-Crown said:

I dont think OP is FUDing. I am the furthest thing from a rudder and the SEC chairmans comments rubbed me the wrong way. It seems 99% of people viewed what he said as a good thing, but I am not so sure. In no uncertain terms he basically said cryptocurrencies are not securities and digital assets are. I kepy asking myself why he said digital assets... Anyway, calling it a digital asset doesnt make it a security, but I did find it peculiar phrasing on the chairmans part since Ripple is the biggest party referring to their related crypto as a digital asset..

I am not really worried, BUT, it is noteworthy language.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Ripple is a forward-thinking trailblazer in the blockchain space and with a C-suite team to match most I have full confidence in their strategy to align with regulation.

The language used is all the more peculiar given Ripples absolute insistance on “asset” rather than “Cryptocurrency”

Share this post


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

"May" being the key word coming out of SEC's mouth.

Of course, I do not expect the SEC to paint all crypto currencies or blockchain tokens with the same brush - but one could infer from the statement that the SEC will look favourably on bonafide cryptocurrencies which serve as a fiat replacement and only that. 

Of course one parties’ description doesn’t constitute it being an actual crypto currency by definition but it sure would help to sell the idea. 

Its amazing what a salesman can sell

Edited by zach
Prematurely sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the thoughtful post, and I think the issue of semantics is at least relevant to this topic.

However, the essence and usage of the technology matters more, and IMO these factors will ultimately determine the SEC’s decision. I’ve always maintained that XRP is a commodity, and that the reason why we are even having this discussion is that XRP is a commodity in a security’s clothing. It’s an invisible commodity. This is a very strange thing to those who come from a traditional background in finance, and explains why people like Suzy from Esoteric Trading Solutions mistakenly refer to XRP as a security. It’s an invisible product that, when the value goes up, increases Ripple’s value as a company. I get it.

However - XRP existed before Ripple was founded, and while a handsome amount of XRP was gifted to Ripple, that does not change the fact that the XRP ecosystem can exist even if Ripple were to go out of business. Additionally, XRP can - and is (see Arrington Capital) - be used as a replacement for fiat currency. There is real utility here, it’s not just a conduit being used to generate value for Ripple the company. This is a product that solves a real problem, just like corn, oil, and timber. A traditional security is merely a vehicle for wealth creation. I can go on if needed; I hope this answers your question.

 

 

Edited by DanB

Share this post


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

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Ripple is a forward-thinking trailblazer in the blockchain space and with a C-suite team to match most I have full confidence in their strategy to align with regulation.

The language used is all the more peculiar given Ripples absolute insistance on “asset” rather than “Cryptocurrency”

To align with what regulations ? The SEC is still in limbo about Cryptocurrencies . They need to come out and classify every crypto as a currency or a security. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have no idea if the OP is an XRP detractor.  But as @zerpdigger pointed out, this has been discussed ad nauseam so I am not sure why a new post was required.  Some of the other posts are still relatively active.

Anyway, based on CNBC's interview with both Jay Clayton and Brett Redfearn (links below), I would not be surprised if the SEC were to declare XRP a security.  What I found the most interesting of both interviews is when asked about Ether and XRP, Brett said a statement on one of those is forthcoming in the near future.  Given all of the press around XRP, I would be shocked if the statement was on Ether.

In my opinion if both interviews, which were given on the same day by two high level SEC officials, are viewed as one it becomes pretty clear what the SEC is likely thinking.  XRP is a security.

If declared a security, I fully expect Ripple to challenge the SEC in court (given Ripple's recent hiring of a former SEC Chariman).  Based on what I have read and heard in other interviews by experts, Ripple challenging the SEC in court could take up to 18-24 months.  In the short term, the price could be significantly impacted.  Longer term it could end up being just a minor setback.  No one knows.  XRP is globally traded so I think a lot would depend on if other governments decide to take similiar action and the outcome of Ripple's (potential) legal challenge.

On the other hand if XRP is not declared a security, I would still expect the price of XRP to go down (though not as much) given it's history of decreasing when good news is released.  :)

Edited by Guest
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if Ripple called it a digital asset or a cryptocurrency.  Just as it doesn't matter if i call it my personal piggy bank.  We both own XRP.

The SEC will look at XRP, see how it's being used, and make a determination upon that usage.  ICO's are who should be worried.

Blah blah blah blah.  Same chitty topic for months now.  

 

Waiting for the next Market Cap topic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capone said:

To align with what regulations ? The SEC is still in limbo about Cryptocurrencies . They need to come out and classify every crypto as a currency or a security. 

The impending regulations facing blockchain and cryptocurrency/tokens et al, the single-most significant headwind facing Ripple in the short-term. I do not believe they need to look at each and every crypto individually, quite the contrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sebastian said:

I have no idea if this is a post by an XRP detractor.  But as @zerpdigger pointed out, this has been discussed ad nauseam these past couple of days so I am not sure why a new post was required.  Some of the other posts are still relatively active.

Anyway, based on CNBC's interview with both Jay Clayton and Brett Redfearn (links below), I would not be surprised if the SEC were to declare XRP a security.  What I found the most interesting of both interviews is when asked about Ether and XRP, Brett said a statement on one of those is forthcoming in the near future.  Given all of the press around XRP, I would be shocked if the statement was on Ether.

In my opinion if both interviews, which were given on the same day by two high level SEC officials, are viewed as one it becomes pretty clear what the SEC is likely thinking.  XRP is a security.

If declared a security given Ripple's recent hiring of a former SEC Chariman, I fully expect Ripple to challenge the SEC in court.  Based on what I have read and heard in other interviews by experts, Ripple challenging the SEC in court could take up to 18-24 months.

In the short term the price could be significantly impacted.  Longer term it could end up being just a minor setback.  No one knows.  XRP is globally traded so I think a lot would depend on if other governments decide to take similiar action.

I have full confidence in XRP and Ripple and wasn’t aware of any earlier post on the nuances of the XRP asset/cryptocurrency. Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed input all the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, XRPisVELOCITY said:

It doesn't matter if Ripple called it a digital asset or a cryptocurrency.  Just as it doesn't matter if i call it my personal piggy bank.  We both own XRP.

The SEC will look at XRP, see how it's being used, and make a determination upon that usage.  ICO's are who should be worried.

Blah blah blah blah.  Same chitty topic for months now.  

 

Waiting for the next Market Cap topic.  

Totally agree. I’d be very concerned about upcoming ICO’s and their legality

Share this post


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...