Jump to content
zach

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PG1 said:

I don't think it would destroy the cross border use case.  FX transactions are taxed in many countries now.  And banks don't need to hold XRP so their exposure is limited.

However, XRP would likely no longer be the ideal asset for micro-transactions & the Internet of value.

Thanks for the reply.

How would being a security affect XRPs functionality? What factors would make it no longer the ideal asset for the IOV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

Thanks for the reply.

How would being a security affect XRPs functionality? What factors would make it no longer the ideal asset for the IOV?

I believe when you trade a security that is deemed a disposition and triggers a taxable event.  In the cross border scenario the liquidity providers or market makers would be taxed.

But taxable events won't fly with micro-transactions and because any asset can be used over ILP I would expect a non-security or currency would then be better.

Having said that I would still be surprised if the SEC deems XRP a security and stifle innovation & invites court battles. XRP is the digital asset with the most traction, a clear use-case & early adoption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PG1 said:

I believe when you trade a security that is deemed a disposition and triggers a taxable event.  In the cross border scenario the liquidity providers or market makers would be taxed.

But taxable events won't fly with micro-transactions and because any asset can be used over ILP I would expect a non-security or currency would then be better.

Having said that I would still be surprised if the SEC deems XRP a security and stifle innovation & invites court battles. XRP is the digital asset with the most traction, a clear use-case & early adoption.

Thanks for such a clear explanation, much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PG1 said:

I believe when you trade a security that is deemed a disposition and triggers a taxable event.  In the cross border scenario the liquidity providers or market makers would be taxed.

They're already going to be taxed on their fiat FX transactions. Profit is profit. Doesn't matter if it comes from real estate, currency exchange, commodities or securities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, OzAlphaWolf said:

They're already going to be taxed on their fiat FX transactions. Profit is profit. Doesn't matter if it comes from real estate, currency exchange, commodities or securities.

Yes. That's what I said in my previous answer.  FX transactions are already taxed in many countries.  I think in the UK FX is exempt.

Anyhow, it is the micro transaction where the use-case would be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, zach said:

For many months now brad and the gang have been very careful NOT to address XRP as a crypto currency

... correct, because there isn't yet a distributed asset being used as a currency (buying and selling of stuff). That's his point.

What's yours?

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.  
I'd say the problem is xrp is being distributed by one entity. Yes it is gifted... blah blah blah... but that seems troublesome to me. What op says is a general concern and nobody can say for sure what the outcome will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything is still in development and very fluid. Even SEC chairman Clayton saying that BTC is a pure Cryptocurrency and not a security could be challenged. Whoever that Yakamoto or Yokomato the alleged creator of Bitcoin is , he created it for profit and did very well. So based on that Bitcoin could be labeled a security. And please don’t tell me that the guy disappeared and cannot be traced . All his transactions are on the blockchain and couldn’t be easier to trace.
He didn't do it for profit + the distribution of btc goes completely different.

Share this post


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

Please find the operative word in the title. It has quotation marks around it, starts with a and ends with t.

Yes but you said financial asset and your attitude to a respected forum member is disrespectful just because he asked you a very valid question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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....

Just lately I feel that I have mistakenly signed into reddit when I come on here. My ignore list is getting larger by the day :girl_haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going with origination then it would have been viewed as a currency and the lawsuits are void of merit.  The original intended use of Peer Coin was to be a 'store of value' and currency for the unbanked if I'm not mistaken.  The bridge currency usecase came later and the pivot to the digital asset moniker became more pronounced.  To my knowledge XRP never equated to an ownership stake in any business or "horizontal" and was simply an asset which parties had an ownership stake in.  Also believe the seed funding and private investment of outside parties may help Ripple as the sale of XRP is not the sole funding of the enterprise.
The whole market is a gray area and I think you could argue at some point in time all digital assets had properties of securities.  Value and distribution do not just appear out of thin air.  You have to have investors and someone being paid in one form or another to develop the network.
 
I wouldn't say so for btc. Value really has been coming out of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PG1 said:

However, XRP would likely no longer be the ideal asset for micro-transactions & the Internet of value.

And yet, technically it could easily be used as a currency to transfer value, just as Bitcoin can. They're no different in that respect - other than BTC is slow and expensive.  SEC don't see BTC as as security.

Edited by 2ndtimearound

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...