Jump to content
Fazzyfocus

SEC commissioner Hestor Pierce on DA's

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Fazzyfocus said:

For the record. Hester Maria Peirce is a Woman. Not a Man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hester_Peirce

 

Thanks for the correction, I seem to have slipped into sexism

Quote

Whist she might be attempting to close the door on early hard and fast rules, the allusion is enough to help Ripple and Mary Jo White set a new precedent in court that XRP is not a security. The nuanced approach is one thing. A legal case is another. 

The ruling won't necessarily determine what XRP is, but it likely will determine what it ISN'T.

My understanding is that SEC deliberates through supporting prosecutions against malpractice rather than through providing legal definitions and judgements.  This concept of providing a letter of authority goes back to an earlier statement they made in the summer suggesting an ICO that started life as a security could transmute into an asset and inviting ICOs to come and discuss their status.  A formal letter confriming SEC beleives this has happened pretty much throws the whole weight of the SEC authority behind a asset. It seems to be an innovation they have invented to find ways under the current legislation to differentiate XRP from other ICO products (in effect break their own rules and conventions and enabling SEC to provide a judgement to protect companies like Ripple from hostile court action) 

Obviously SEC could move on to help the lawmakers in Congress could create a new asset class, that really would provide the well defined clarity you think is necessary, but if it were loosely framed the laws might open a can of worms by providing loop holes and legal cover for ponzi schemes to take advantage of.  Such an unsatisfactory law might reintroduce uncertainty that would need to be tested by a series of legal challenges..

I am no lawyer.  Would a court case really make that much difference, unless it was the supreme court that ruled? 

 

 

Edited by Julian_Williams

Share this post


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

Thanks for the correction, I seem to have slipped into sexism

My understanding is that SEC deliberates through supporting prosecutions against malpractice rather than through providing legal definitions and judgements.  This concept of providing a letter of authority goes back to an earlier statement they made in the summer suggesting an ICO that started life as a security could transmute into an asset and inviting ICOs to come and discuss their status.  A formal letter confriming SEC beleives this has happened pretty much throws the whole weight of the SEC authority behind a asset. It seems to be an innovation they have invented to find ways under the current legislation to differentiate XRP from other ICO products (in effect break their own rules and conventions and enabling SEC to provide a judgement to protect companies like Ripple from hostile court action) 

Obviously SEC could move on to help the lawmakers in Congress could create a new asset class, that really would provide the well defined clarity you think is necessary, but if it were loosely framed the laws might open a can of worms by providing loop holes and legal cover for ponzi schemes to take advantage of.  Such an unsatisfactory law might reintroduce uncertainty that would need to be tested by a series of legal challenges..

I am no lawyer.  Would a court case really make that much difference, unless it was the supreme court that ruled? 

 

 

Fair points, however I think (from a legal perspective at least) you might be underestimating the power of the courts. 

The scenario when you look at the bigger picture outside the realms of the SEC and the CTFC is multiple individuals (rightly or wrongly) have made an allegation of improper financial conduct through the courts. This opens up the remit of the department of justice. Given this is the first type of case of its kind, the implications are pretty serious in the absence of a legal definition through congress in the form of legislation. (Let's assume TTA doesn't pass before the cases come to trial for the purposes of this discussion).

In this scenario, whilst I would normally agree that the SEC would not take a "consultancy" style role to the DoJ normally, I believe here...They will be forced to. 

Trial should consider evidence from both sides AND guidance from the SEC before the DoJ can make an informed and correct interpretation of laws that exist now (securities trading) whilst being aware that these kind of assets are in the procrss of being regulated. 

The point is, this is the first case of its kind. The result of this will set precedent either opening the floodgates for Any one and everyone to sue ripple OR (more likely) shut that specific door for that specific legal action in the event of a not guilty verdict. 

Share this post


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

Fair points, however I think (from a legal perspective at least) you might be underestimating the power of the courts. 

The scenario when you look at the bigger picture outside the realms of the SEC and the CTFC is multiple individuals (rightly or wrongly) have made an allegation of improper financial conduct through the courts. This opens up the remit of the department of justice. Given this is the first type of case of its kind, the implications are pretty serious in the absence of a legal definition through congress in the form of legislation. (Let's assume TTA doesn't pass before the cases come to trial for the purposes of this discussion).

In this scenario, whilst I would normally agree that the SEC would not take a "consultancy" style role to the DoJ normally, I believe here...They will be forced to. 

Trial should consider evidence from both sides AND guidance from the SEC before the DoJ can make an informed and correct interpretation of laws that exist now (securities trading) whilst being aware that these kind of assets are in the procrss of being regulated. 

The point is, this is the first case of its kind. The result of this will set precedent either opening the floodgates for Any one and everyone to sue ripple OR (more likely) shut that specific door for that specific legal action in the event of a not guilty verdict. 

Its a really difficult position for SEC isn't it.  They really are trying to create an environment for XRP to be given legal clarity to move forward with what is happening in the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

Its a really difficult position for SEC isn't it.  They really are trying to create an environment for XRP to be given legal clarity to move forward with what is happening in the rest of the world.

It's the very definition of a conflict of interest.

A statement of the nature already given by Hester Pierce is already a fine line. She would absolutely be aware of the cases and would know that a statement of that nature which all but mentions ripple is likely to be the furthest she could go politically without rocking the boat between SEC and DoJ as it's a public statement. 

 

EDIT: it's what is known as separation of power. That's the crux of it.

Edited by Fazzyfocus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, aavkk said:

Well when it was announced that Ripple finally ponied up for a high profile lobbying firm in Washington to "educate" lawmakers it was at that point I let out a sigh of relief.  The BTC maximalists were lobbying for quite a while and in my opinion were closer to successfully closing the door on Ripple and XRP than we all thought.  This common sense prevailing certainly had its cost in lobbying fees.  At least they got it done!  Now we can go about becoming the global standard for cross-border payments...

I thought we hated lobbyists? So now it is ok to use them to pay off (educate) politicians, simply if the reason suits your own preference? I do not see that as consistent, unless you are a consistent hypocrite.

Also I do not see any good news in the statements. Ripple still controls the network, and holds the overwhelming amount of the assets, making it very difficult to qualify as a decentralized network. I have read Mr. Schwartz and Garlinghouse (and the local parrots) repeatedly state that the network will stand alone, without RL’s validators, yet they refuse to take them offline, and they still own the only UNL that matters. 

To me it is basic economics. RL is the only entity profiting from the functioning network, which is why they happily run validators, everyone else is volunteering. Not sure when unpaid volunteers will come together in masses, spending their free time and their own earned money, to build a reliable, worldwide, infrastructure trusted by all Govts, and used by FIs. As nice as volunteering is, it is not a way to pay the bills.

Hopefully you personally run a validator, if you beleive in the ILP model, or is that part of achieving sucsess, someone else’s problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Dated 17th  December 2018, panel  is Attorney's Valeria Bystrowicz and Sarah Hody of Perkins Cole, Ripples SVP of Business Operations Eric Van Miltenberg and Author and Wharton  Professor Kevin Werbach.

I found this relevant , if not and is distracting from the OP @Fazzyfocus I'll delete. I like this we're working with over 40 regulatory bodies around the world :D .

Share this post


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

and holds the overwhelming amount of the assets, making it very difficult to qualify as a decentralized network.

Yes, the really hard part of launching a pure digital asset, is distribution.

Ripple is quite successful in distributing the XRP asset. Already down from 80% to 60%, in just a few years. Half a billion worth last year. So, the "problem" you are seeing is being solved, day by day, year by year. In any case, the problem gets smaller every day, not bigger.

Or do you have an alternate way in which the digital asset can be magically "fairly" (who gets to judge that, if its not the market?) distributed at its inception, while ensuring the asset still has value?

Or do you consider Proof of Work, which favors those having access to cheap power (China) and priority access to mining hardware (China), while burning a parabolically increasing amount of energy, a more fair and smarter method of distribution?

Edited by lucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lucky said:

Yes, the really hard part of launching a pure digital asset, is distribution.

Ripple is quite successful in distributing the XRP asset. Already down from 80% to 60%, in just a few years. Half a billion worth last year. So, the "problem" you are seeing is being solved, day by day, year by year. In any case, the problem gets smaller every day, not bigger.

Or do you have an alternate way in which the digital asset can be magically "fairly" (who gets to judge that, if its not the market?) distributed at its inception, while ensuring the asset still has value?

Or do you consider Proof of Work, which favors those having access to cheap power (China) and priority access to mining hardware (China), while burning a parabolically increasing amount of energy, a more fair and smarter method of distribution?

I'm fairly certain that is what is described in professional circles as a "Mic drop".

Lucky. Fudbusting fudspreaders since 2010 inc. 

Edited by Fazzyfocus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fazzyfocus said:

I'm fairly certain that is what is described in professional circles as a "Mic drop".

Lucky. Fudbusting fudspreaders since 2010 inc. 

Thanks :)

Edited by lucky

Share this post


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

Yes, the really hard part of launching a pure digital asset, is distribution.

Ripple is quite successful in distributing the XRP asset. Already down from 80% to 60%, in just a few years. Half a billion worth last year. So, the "problem" you are seeing is being solved, day by day, year by year. In any case, the problem gets smaller every day, not bigger.

Or do you have an alternate way in which the digital asset can be magically "fairly" (who gets to judge that, if its not the market?) distributed at its inception, while ensuring the asset still has value?

Or do you consider Proof of Work, which favors those having access to cheap power (China) and priority access to mining hardware (China), while burning a parabolically increasing amount of energy, a more fair and smarter method of distribution?

Or is it just that you can't stand other people being successfull?

The obvious way to distribute XRP is the same way which you and I used to get ours: Open Market Sales. Let the market set the value, anything short is manipulation, and manipulation is the opposite of ”FAIR” 

I would rather see $.0001 per XRP with RL holding 0 XRP,  versus the insider actions, that are only possible when you have sole control of the supply. 

I would certainly buy more if I felt that it couldn’t get any cheaper. You feel Wall St professionals feel differently?

Controlling the supply of your asset to manitain pricing is what public companies do with their stock. XRP is not supposed to be a stock. 

Any opinion on the validator side of the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record by the way. I don't hate lobbyists. I hate specific causes behind lobbying on occasion but that is like saying you hate everyone that advocates for change. 

Change can be for the better or worse. Lobbyists for the NRA? Yes that is stupidity. They ahve plenty of power and america has enough gun deaths already

Lobbyists for philanthropy? Hardly applicable in the same boat. 

Painting all with the same brush because they use the same tools is not wise when the agendas are different. Its a little short sighted.

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...