Jump to content

Charting the course of XRP


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, B088IN said:

So what happens if they refuse to turn over the documents, what can happen?

 

1 hour ago, B088IN said:

My question is what can the judge do if the SEC don’t abide by the orders given in handing over the documents?

The SEC could be held in contempt if I’m not mistaken. At least that’s what happens to regular people who disobey the court. This leaves you subject to a small fine and could even get you prison time. However, being as this is the SEC we’re talking about, I’m sure they’re gonna get aaaaall the leeway in the world because they’re above the law to some extent, whether people want to accept it or not. 
 

In the end, I really don’t know what’s gonna happen. Who knows, maybe this might infuriate the Judge off enough to actually grant Ripple’s motion to dismiss the case. That would be a massive slap to the face to the SEC and a much deserved one at that. 

Edited by Neurotoxin
Had a “bad” word in it and it was starred out so I fixed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a shame that there is no lawyer in the space siding with the SEC and explaining how Ripple might lose. Jeremy Hogan is great and obviously everyone here roots for Ripple, but I can't shake the feeling that Ripple might have done something very wrong, that XRP investors are the turkey. Giving Ripple full support kind of looks like a weird version of Stockholm's syndrome.

I wish I had the legal knowledge to understand better the SEC's side of the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troote said:

It is a shame that there is no lawyer in the space siding with the SEC and explaining how Ripple might lose. Jeremy Hogan is great and obviously everyone here roots for Ripple, but I can't shake the feeling that Ripple might have done something very wrong, that XRP investors are the turkey. Giving Ripple full support kind of looks like a weird version of Stockholm's syndrome.

I wish I had the legal knowledge to understand better the SEC's side of the case.

Jesse Hynes tried to do that and people pounced on him. Take a look at Pablo's thread on this. IIRC, Pablo is a corporate law attorney and has a fair understanding of the securities laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Troote said:

It is a shame that there is no lawyer in the space siding with the SEC and explaining how Ripple might lose. Jeremy Hogan is great and obviously everyone here roots for Ripple, but I can't shake the feeling that Ripple might have done something very wrong, that XRP investors are the turkey. Giving Ripple full support kind of looks like a weird version of Stockholm's syndrome.

I wish I had the legal knowledge to understand better the SEC's side of the case.

I am sure they are out there, but the broader crypto landscape generally prefers to ignore Ripple/XRP if given the chance. 

I tend to also think that Ripple did some shady things, but I wouldn't call those things "very wrong." And I am of the opinion that whatever they have done (namely create and develop an innovative and disruptive technology), pales in comparison to the efforts of the institutions that are trying to slow them down (stifle competition). 

Ripple is the David in this David v. Goliath battle that we are witnessing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ripley said:

Jesse Hynes tried to do that and people pounced on him. Take a look at Pablo's thread on this. IIRC, Pablo is a corporate law attorney and has a fair understanding of the securities laws.

In fact, I read and listen carefully to these guys to keep both feeth on the ground. The danger is, as always, that we tend to listen better to whom we like te believe. I like JH a lot, because he's good, but this is partially due to (my & other's) psychology...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Frisia said:

In fact, I read and listen carefully to these guys to keep both feeth on the ground. The danger is, as always, that we tend to listen better to whom we like te believe. I like JH a lot, because he's good, but this is partially due to (my & other's) psychology...

If we take Ripple out of the equation and talk about implications of the outcome on broader crypto industry:

  • If the argument is that concentration of assets is a problem, and that there needs to be protection from manipulation, whales across all coins including BTC would have to be compliant. I personally think this is very desirable for organic growth of crypto markets. Question is who gets to enforce this. 
  • If the argument is that concentration of development is a problem, BTC, ETH and XRP are probably fine today, with ETH having the strongest distributed developer community.
  • If the argument is that concentration of consensus (network control) is a problem, several crypto including XRP no longer have an issue but most do.
    Proof of Stake networks may fall under concentration of both assets and consensus (control of network). Most also have a concentration of development.

SEC’s view is simple - per US law if the price of an asset is dependent on others’ efforts, it’s a security. By that measure, MOST of crypto currencies are securities.
 

BTC might be fine because there isn’t really any development/utility backing it’s price. Most of it is just the price of mining a coin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Frisia said:

In fact, I read and listen carefully to these guys to keep both feeth on the ground. The danger is, as always, that we tend to listen better to whom we like te believe.

Well, that's a danger, for some, sure (personally, I tend to always pay more attention to people whom, IF I believe them, the consequences of them lying to me would be greater), but there's also a danger of slipping from I to "we" and falling into an old trap called groupthink (which I think is a misnomer, as it's not really "thinking").  But I'm not your average cat, obviously - and while I may slip, occasionally, into my old Californian and come out with an intoned "dude!", I'm not a big fan of the cult of "is this the new thing that we're all thinking, now?  wait, the new thing we're all thinking is that we're all supposed to be super/hyper aware of what we're thinking and on the lookout for "bias"?  dude, that sounds exhausting - I already know how to think, thank you very much.

Maybe I'm just cranky.

I just got done reading a Scientific American article - first one since they sold out their remaining credibility, last year - and they were busy stating that there was some correlation between a bodily characteristic and intelligence.  No number in the whole article, nor a link to the "study" where I'm sure I could be further disappointed by what's passing for "science," lately.

All of this pop-psy / everyone's-a-behavioural-economist-on-the-internet / here-are-9-cognitive-biases-to-watch-out-for stuff is entertaining - and maybe useful, to some extent, for some people - but none of that beats actually just thinking - at least for me...

("We" shall see...  As for SEC, I think they've got an AMC / naked short problem on their hands.  I call it "The Greater Hot Potato" hypothesis and my article on that, for Scientific American, which apparently will only require me to write a blog post without doing anything other than sitting around and conjecturing, will be published as soon as they offer me enough money to actually write it - which should be any minute now, as they've got to be bleeding subscribers or readers or whatever their business model in publishing all of this "stuff" might be.)

Ah, Saturday.  Lovely planet, Saturn.  Romans had a festival, even.  Gifts involved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

It's only the pre-trial manouevering before a magistrate (Magistrate Netburn is not the trial judge, she simply helps Judge Torres prepare the case for hearing). I'm not saying they're not important steps - they're critical. But there cannot be any judgement until the case goes to hearing or the parties settle beforehand.

I am a non lawyer so I have little understanding of the legal system.

How closely is Judge Torres following the case right now? Is she active behind the scenes or just gets briefed occasionally or not at all?

I am asking this because I am curious to see how the SEC's current handling of the case might spill over into the trial if it goes that far.

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CryptoPitbull said:

How closely is Judge Torres following the case right now? Is she active behind the scenes or just gets briefed occasionally or not at all?

I am asking this because I am curious to see how the SEC's current handling of the case might spill over into the trial if it goes that far.

What are your thoughts?

My understanding is that she was very busy but that her calendar has recently cleared up, a bit, after some old business from the last administration was handled very delicately.  It was obviously distasteful for her to do it, but she did her job.

As a Janitor, I sympathize...  And I always notice when people do good jobs handling things that nobody else will touch...  Those are the people I keep in mind for promotions when other spots open up.  Work ethic still means something, to me.

We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightJanitor said:

My understanding is that she was very busy but that her calendar has recently cleared up, a bit, after some old business from the last administration was handled very delicately.  It was obviously distasteful for her to do it, but she did her job.

Ooh.. I knew the result of that other thing but didn’t realise who the judge was. You made me look and I’m not disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Pablo said:

There are actually several lawyers in the crypto space who have analysed the case extremely closely explaining how the case will likely play out. Given that these lawyers are either BTC or ETH maxis and are openly critical of Ripple, you can safely assume that they won't pull their punches.

Hm. I agree that the lawyers who acted as SEC supporters are trolls showing very poor analysis, not worth listening too. Replacing one extreme bias (blind support for Ripple) by another (blind hate towards Ripple) is not helpful. You talk about conspiracy theories (e.g. Gensler stepping in) which have always been, for me, ludicrous assertions. You talk about narratives (Gensler's motives, etc), which have little to do with the actual case but make for entertaining (not...?) tinfoil forum conversation. You talk about settlement - and yes, I get it, this is probably the most obvious outcome. But none of that answers my question. 

What I am keen to understand is why and how the SEC can actually win, fully and completely. Because I suspect their likelihood of winning is higher than what people think. I will spend some time to read through the thread you refer to. With a bit of luck, I will find something to satisfy my curiosity.

Put it this way. If the people behind Tether were seriously being sued, would anyone here support them? Even though Tether dying would probably sign a massive crash to our holdings? Nah, we would be quite happy to see criminals and scammers in jail. Why is everyone rooting for Ripple and not realising these people are maybe, just maybe, not our friends?

Edited by Troote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Troote said:

What I am keen to understand is why and how the SEC can actually win, fully and completely. Because I suspect their likelihood of winning is higher than what people think. I will spend some time to read through the thread you refer to. With a bit of luck, I will find something to satisfy my curiosity.

Put it this way. If the people behind Tether were seriously being sued, would anyone here support them? Even though Tether dying would probably sign a massive crash to our holdings? Nah, we would be quite happy to see criminals and scammers in jail. Why is everyone rooting for Ripple and not realising these people are maybe, just maybe, not our friends?

You may be conflating two different questions. What happens with the lawsuit is a purely legal matter, subject to interpretations and so we hear different ones from different attorneys.

Whether Ripple is a “friend” or not is a different question and IMO doesn’t matter here.

The SEC is coming after all of crypto. Not just XRP. See my post a little above, or read Pablo’s thread etc. That’s a big reason for everyone rooting for a settlement, and I doubt anyone expects Ripple to win. Clarity should come through legislation. Not via enforcement.

If Ripple wins, the SEC is hobbled from going after scams until there’s legislation. If the SEC wins, say good bye to crypto development in the US until there’s legislation.

And most importantly, don’t be swayed by narratives. Ripple’s outrage at the SEC during the discovery phase is just as much an elaborate strategy as are the SECs allegations. Neither are a 100% true. It’s like an ugly divorce. That’s the game and everyone’s forced to play it.

Say you’re negotiating on the price of some item and are willing to buy it at a 100. The seller quotes a price of 150. You don’t bargain down from 150. You bargain up from 80. Same thing here. Attempt a coup, settle for a seat at the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripley said:

Ooh.. I knew the result of that other thing but didn’t realise who the judge was. You made me look and I’m not disappointed.

I'm having trouble following...what was the other thing you mention?

Link to comment
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
 Share



×
×
  • 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.