Jump to content
cryptoxrp

Good News For Ripple? SEC To Consider More “No Action” Letters For Crypto

Recommended Posts

“Director William Hinman, head of the Division for Corporate Finance, says that the SEC may issue No-Action Letters for projects whose tokens are now in compliance, even if the original sales pushed the boundaries of securities regulations.“That’s the flexibility of the regulatory framework that we’re working with,” he said.”

Source: https://cryptobriefing.com/good-news-ripple-sec-crypto-ico/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They "may". Could. Perhaps. Possibly. Who knows. More ambiguity and obscurity instead of just addressing the issues at stake, for god's sake.

They really had enough time so far.

Most be politically motivated indecision.

Don't forget, those bailed out banks fear change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, panmores said:

They "may". Could. Perhaps. Possibly. Who knows. More ambiguity and obscurity instead of just addressing the issues at stake, for god's sake.

They really had enough time so far.

Most be politically motivated indecision.

Don't forget, those bailed out banks fear change.

Don’t forget that somehow a lot of banks are already connected to Ripplenet indirectly. We must let time (adoption) do it’s work. November 2021 is my personal target date (ECB turns the switch for the NSP’s).

Edited by cryptoxrp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point the SEC will never mention XRP by name. A no action for the past 5 years tells us all we need to know.

If the SEC singled out XRP then these other cryptos would be knocking on there door non stop asking for the same treatment. 

 

We all know XRP is not a security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have actually wondered about the process of filing for a no action letter.  Should it be Ripple who does something like that?  Ripple did not issue XRP, if Ripple went away the XRPL would continue, and no promises of return were ever provided with the purchase of XRP.

That being said, could another company that utilizes XRP ask for a no action letter such as Coil or Kava Labs?  Could the community drop up ONE incredibly well thought request for no action and submit it since we all own XRP and utilize it for quick transfers?  

If the SEC would only look to Ripple for a request for no action I feel like that defeats the purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To whom the letter would be sent to? To Brad Garlinghouse? He's CEO of Ripple Labs Inc. not of the XRPLedger. Sure, they own quite a lot XRP, but many of us own some too, so basically Ripple is only an owner of a large XRP stake.

Maybe they should send the letter to @TiffanyHayden, because she's the CEO of XRP.

 

In any case, who will have a final say in this is a judge, it's not the SEC. They can only have a legal opinion. Power of that opinion is exactly the same as the power of Ripple Labs Inc, you or me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long overdue. IMO SEC as a whole is ethically reprehensible for their lack of clarity on this. Yes, there are a few regulators within the SEC that seem to understand the legal jeopardy in which they are placing people, but overall their unwillingness to provide guidance is demonstrative of terrible governance and institutional cowardice. Unfortunately, this seems to be the status quo for the SEC, just look at their refusal to provide clarity on insider trading, essentially rendering it into a case of "I'll know it when i see it". They let case law stand-in for actual clearly written guidelines, placing the onus on individuals, who are usually not lawyers, to perform historical legal research just to determine whether they are falling afoul of the law. It's basically the equivalent of telling people they are responsible for following the speed limit but then refusing to post any signs or publicly state what that limit is. Their goal seems not to provide clarity but to actively create ambiguity so as to allow capricious use of authority whenever they wish. 

 

--Off soapbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRP2theMoon said:

I think at this point the SEC will never mention XRP by name. A no action for the past 5 years tells us all we need to know.

If the SEC singled out XRP then these other cryptos would be knocking on there door non stop asking for the same treatment. 

 

We all know XRP is not a security

Rest in peace, my sweet dividends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a reminder guys, a "coin" cannot itself be intrinsically a security, that's not how it works

a transaction (or transactions plural) CAN be deemed a securities offering, and that transaction(s) can be tiny or enormous and effectively shut down an entire market (like bitconnect), or not... but the coin itself, even bitconnect, if somehow was already distributed and traded freely among others, is simply what it is, a crypto-asset traded among peers (regulated or not)

my point is: XRP itself can never and will never be deemed a security simply because that is not even physically or legally possible

what COULD happen is a ripple (or other entity's?) offering be deemed a securities offering and that could in theory affect the market (or not) just as if it were an 'ICO' style fundraiser -- but honestly, i'm not worried either way: XRP marches on regardless

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...