Jump to content

Charting the course of XRP


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don’t see how a 300-400% increase from now specially in absolute manic altcoin market times is a big stretch when everyone seems to be fine with bitcoin increasing 100% from now and many envisioning 200%

Although personally my exit plan is to sell a thousand coins each time we hit another dollar starting at $2. I have 33k xrp… I don’t think we’ll hit $34 🤣🤣 so I’m prepared to dump it all when we have another December 2017 / January 2018. I do believe that the spring we had was eerily similar to spring 2017. Bitcoin probably went a touch higher than I’d have thought, still not done for this cycle. I’ll be bearish in 2022

Edited by Benaoao20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benaoao20 said:

I don’t see how a 300-400% increase from now specially in absolute manic altcoin market times is a big stretch when everyone seems to be fine with bitcoin increasing 100% from now and many envisioning 200%

Although personally my exit plan is to sell a thousand coins each time we hit another dollar starting at $2. I have 33k xrp… I don’t think we’ll hit $34 🤣🤣 so I’m prepared to dump it all when we have another December 2017 / January 2018. I do believe that the spring we had was eerily similar to spring 2017. Bitcoin probably went a touch higher than I’d have thought, still not done for this cycle. I’ll be bearish in 2022

Hail bears in 2022 🐻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commissioner Crenshaw's letter (see below) ultimately draws the battle lines for me with the lawsuit.

  1. SEC doesn't want Ripple (along with Consensus, Cardano, any other company) to make any money or any profit from token sales without providing some form of returns to the speculators - dividend, portion of a company, treat it as a loan, etc.
  2. Ripple doesn't want XRP to be deemed a security, or even their sales to be a security, in the current definition of a security because that effectively means that it kills the secondary market for XRP. None of the crypto exchanges have broker-dealer licenses and are unlikely to get it any time soon. None of the securities exchanges are likely to get license to support crypto trading any time soon.

Needless to say, the implications aren't just XRP/Ripple related. 

The trick is to solve for #2 above, but at the same time also solve for #1 without killing crypto.

Ref: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/crenshaw-sec-speaks-20211012

Edited by Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this. I find both perspectives from within the SEC (Pierce and Crenshaw) to be reasonable. But a couple things stood out to me in Crenshaw's speech. 

Quote

For an industry that promotes transparency, I have been surprised how frequently offerings include secret identities, concealed control persons, and embellished or totally fictional teams. Requiring honest disclosures of the development team on whom investors are relying is a necessary step. However, it is not sufficient by itself.

When I read the above line, I immediately thought of Arthur Britto, and it wasn't the only time this point was made by Crenshaw. 

Quote

To me, this requires interested parties – including token issuers, exchanges, and others – to conduct their own analysis of their regulatory compliance, and be ready to share that with us. If you likely fall within our jurisdiction, work with us to describe your plan to comply or explain why some exemption is appropriate. If you have concerns that you can only comply with certain requirements because the nature of your project doesn’t completely fit within our existing framework, come to us with detailed plans for how you will offer a comparable level of disclosure, investor protection, market access, and other important protections guaranteed by the securities laws. Do that before moving forward.

I feel like the above is exactly what Ripple did, and more to their defense in the current case, this is exactly what Coinbase did before listing XRP. The SEC gave the indication that this was fine...but here we are. So I find this to be a major hole in Crenshaw's perspective (but potentially to our benefit in court). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ripley said:

Commissioner Crenshaw's letter (see below) ultimately draws the battle lines for me with the lawsuit.

  1. SEC doesn't want Ripple (along with Consensus, Cardano, any other company) to make any money or any profit from token sales without providing some form of returns to the speculators - dividend, portion of a company, treat it as a loan, etc.
  2. Ripple doesn't want XRP to be deemed a security, or even their sales to be a security, in the current definition of a security because that effectively means that it kills the secondary market for XRP. None of the crypto exchanges have broker-dealer licenses and are unlikely to get it any time soon. None of the securities exchanges are likely to get license to support crypto trading any time soon.

Needless to say, the implications aren't just XRP/Ripple related. 

The trick is to solve for #2 above, but at the same time also solve for #1 without killing crypto.

Ref: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/crenshaw-sec-speaks-20211012

1. Offering dividends or ownership would explicitly make them securities. That's exactly what the SEC wants so they can regulate them and keep anyone who's not an accredited investor out.

2. The XRPL has a freaking built-in DEX. All they need to do is use it. Make bridges to the major networks and anyone who wants to will be able trade XRP for BTC, ETH, BNB, etc. It won't matter what it's classified as if you can get to it in a decentralized fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brianwalden said:

Offering dividends or ownership would explicitly make them securities. That's exactly what the SEC wants so they can regulate them and keep anyone who's not an accredited investor out.

I think this is underpinning all of it in general. Stonks are running out of steam, and they want to take control of this new market by boxing all of us out so that they can run easy money making schemes like they do with equities. 

They are late to the game, and they cannot effing stand it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, brianwalden said:

1. Offering dividends or ownership would explicitly make them securities. That's exactly what the SEC wants so they can regulate them and keep anyone who's not an accredited investor out.

2. The XRPL has a freaking built-in DEX. All they need to do is use it. Make bridges to the major networks and anyone who wants to will be able trade XRP for BTC, ETH, BNB, etc. It won't matter what it's classified as if you can get to it in a decentralized fashion.

I agree with 1. That’s why we have a lawsuit. 

I agree that the DEX is the future too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripley said:

Commissioner Crenshaw's letter (see below) ultimately draws the battle lines for me with the lawsuit.

  1. SEC doesn't want Ripple (along with Consensus, Cardano, any other company) to make any money or any profit from token sales without providing some form of returns to the speculators - dividend, portion of a company, treat it as a loan, etc.
  2. Ripple doesn't want XRP to be deemed a security, or even their sales to be a security, in the current definition of a security because that effectively means that it kills the secondary market for XRP. None of the crypto exchanges have broker-dealer licenses and are unlikely to get it any time soon. None of the securities exchanges are likely to get license to support crypto trading any time soon.

Needless to say, the implications aren't just XRP/Ripple related. 

The trick is to solve for #2 above, but at the same time also solve for #1 without killing crypto.

Ref: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/crenshaw-sec-speaks-20211012

He missed out that the SEC wants money in the form of fines. Their motivation is tainted by the way that they are funded.

Allegedly, They want to get cash settlement and move to the next victim, rather than give advice, negotiate and reach agreement.
That is without mentioning the historical relationships between Eth founders and SEC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripley said:

Commissioner Crenshaw's letter (see below) ultimately draws the battle lines for me with the lawsuit.

  1. SEC doesn't want Ripple (along with Consensus, Cardano, any other company) to make any money or any profit from token sales without providing some form of returns to the speculators - dividend, portion of a company, treat it as a loan, etc.
  2. Ripple doesn't want XRP to be deemed a security, or even their sales to be a security, in the current definition of a security because that effectively means that it kills the secondary market for XRP. None of the crypto exchanges have broker-dealer licenses and are unlikely to get it any time soon. None of the securities exchanges are likely to get license to support crypto trading any time soon.

Needless to say, the implications aren't just XRP/Ripple related. 

The trick is to solve for #2 above, but at the same time also solve for #1 without killing crypto.

Ref: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/crenshaw-sec-speaks-20211012

1.) The SEC should require this of the Ethereum Foundation as well. And, J Clayton and Hinman's business ties should not benefit by their past inaction. If Ripple must pay, then surely the Ethereum Foundation must as well, right? 

2.) In my personal view this is simple to resolve. All XRP in the secondary market, which not a single business or organization has control over, should be deemed not a security. This frees us and the secondary market. 

3.) Ripple can have rules set in place by the SEC to sell to accredited investors under the newly formed RIPPLE test. 

This lawyering back and forth and Gensler's lack of a pair of testicles is astonishing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cambridge said:

1.) The SEC should require this of the Ethereum Foundation as well. And, J Clayton and Hinman's business ties should not benefit by their past inaction. If Ripple must pay, then surely the Ethereum Foundation must as well, right? 

2.) In my personal view this is simple to resolve. All XRP in the secondary market, which not a single business or organization has control over, should be deemed not a security. This frees us and the secondary market. 

3.) Ripple can have rules set in place by the SEC to sell to accredited investors under the newly formed RIPPLE test. 

This lawyering back and forth and Gensler's lack of a pair of testicles is astonishing. 

I hope (and expect) #2 is where we end up.

#3 might still be a problem, even if the limitations are within the U.S. markets. None of the central exchanges are licensed as broker-dealers. I don't think they will get that anytime soon either because several coins on those exchanges could be deemed securities. All proof-of-stake tokens are securities per today's laws btw.

There may be a couple of options here - 

  1. think Kraken is trying to get a license in Wyoming. Perhaps it can be an LP for XRPL. Come to think of it, I think Ripple has also registered an office of some kind there.
  2. AMM on DEX may obviate the need for broker-dealers in the U.S.

Possible Alternative Outcomes

  • [Highly Unlikely] Congress passes a law as a bi-lateral compromise deal along with other infrastructure and tax bills that are due later this year. 
  • [Possible, but don't know if it is probable] Judge Torres doesn't issue a ruling, and instead says this is too important to be ruled in a court (apparently this has happened before), that Congress should pass a law and that until then secondary markets are off limits for the SEC to protect investors.

Remember that speculation in crypto shouldn't be seen as a bug. It should be seen as a feature. Where there's money, there's entrepreneurship. With that, jobs. And taxes. That sweet sweet tax money that governments crave. I am hopeful that we will land on our feet, here in the U.S.

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.