Jump to content
Bruhne

Trim the fat

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, AlvaroXRP said:

Ripple is just paying large amounts of money to lawyers and former sec employees to save their butts. 

or defend themselves against spurious claims? are you proposing they not do it?

innovation is messy, who knows what other challenges might pop up, doesn't mean you don't try, you just deal best you can...and one way of mitigating future risk would be to allocate resources to said lawyers and former sec employees, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wogojump said:

That is not favorable for either Ripple or XRP investors. Its a waste of resources to use funds to fight legal battles that could be avoidable.  Over abundance of legal cases against Ripple also reduces future investments and support.

avoidable how? you can't stop someone from suing you, particularly if what the area of law/regulation is unsettled...innovation is messy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 9:35 AM, Valhalla_Guy said:

“Ripple is a software company” not a Fed Reserve (Ask Mr, Garlinghouse) RL is using an invented asset to fund it’s business plan of being a SW company. We hear the constant announcements of new customer’s signing, up for xVia and xCurrent. These 2 software packages are the golden goose for RL. XRP is simply goose food. 

 

This was a very impactful statement for me and has me really looking at my long term strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question.  What does Ripple have to lose if they release true details of xRAPID / XRP success (if it does truly exist as its been suggested).

Would Ripple (the company) have much to gain?  why not release/disclose news that would prove it and sky-rocket the price?  

Someone mentioned that it needs to stay reasonably priced....but isn't that just a relevant number based on time/value?

If A bank needs to send $10,000 USD to MX - PESO's if its valued at .27 Cents   they would need 37037 XRP - if XRP is valued at $100 each the bank just need 100 XRP.

the big winner would be Ripple the company that owns the most XRP.  So why not release news that makes your asset more valuable?  Unless there is no news???

can anyone tell me a reason why Ripple would not want to release XRP facts and good news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, itcdominic said:

tell me a reason why Ripple would not want to release XRP facts and good news?

The fact of the matter is just news will not move the price. Only real world adoption and increasing demand will. Right now, there is more than enough supply to meet current demand. It doesn't matter what news people hear, until and if the general public trust in crytpos being able to retain  and have value even though there is no underlying asset backing, nothing will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 5:34 AM, Sporticus said:

If XRP had the actual use case which Ripple has promoted for the last several years, then there would be a consistent rise in utility  volume, but that has not happened.

 

I feel shat on. I've dived into your thread with an open mind only to run into this and more rubbish that @Tinyaccount has eloquently pointed out. You can't drive a point home if your arguments are flat-out wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
43 minutes ago, itcdominic said:

can anyone tell me a reason why Ripple would not want to release XRP facts and good news?

Ripple have customers.  Those customers are operating in a very competitive market and have no desire or reason to reveal to their competitors their internal costings.  The NDA’s that you hear mentioned are NonDisclosure Agreements requested by the customers.  Ripple abides by them because they are straight shooters playing by the rules (and also no doubt to avoid litigation and reputational damage).

Ripple would love to release all the details but cannot because of the NDAs.  Brad has said as much in the past.

So your question is based on the false premise that Ripple does not want to release good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tinyaccount said:

So your question is based on the false premise that Ripple does not want to release good news.

I don´t think so 100%. Total number of partners, new partners, total XRP volume and trend, anonymized statistics that´s what I expect to find in Q reports at least. This kind of info is not covered by NDAs and in fact could be a good marketing tool for new potential partners //of course if they are positive. 

Share this post


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

avoidable how? you can't stop someone from suing you, particularly if what the area of law/regulation is unsettled...innovation is messy!

There are multiple strategies to avoid getting sued.  I would recommend to read one of the upcoming lawsuits or SEC cases against Ripple to get specific examples.  Basically, you avoid many of the examples pointed out in these cases. Organizations typically hire legal professionals to help avoid the company putting themselves in situations that increase chances of legit lawsuits being filed against them.  A few examples:

1. Enable policies against employees commenting on social media about the company (I believe Ripple has recently implemented).

2. When selling products (ie XRP), make sure appropriate governing agencies give the sign off prior to selling in the market.  If regulations are not clear, make sure formal sign of process is followed and documented.

3. Ensure employees are not participating in tactics or communications that can be perceived as market manipulation.

4. Ensure employees and organization are not making communications that can be misleading to investors.

5. Ensure major decisions are signed off showing they are in best interest of your stakeholders/investors.

6. Implement policies to reduce conflict of interests.  For example paying ~$265 million which is way over standard market price for Coil partnership, is abnormal.  When considering these scenarios, will want to reduce any conflicts of interests.  Including former employee/personal friendships that are involved in the business agreement.  In this example, companies will generally remove employees with conflict of interest from the business deal and make sure enough documentation is completed to prove this decision was based on best interest of business and stakeholders (rather than conflicting personal friendship).

Edited by wogojump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To All Ripple-XRP Cultists, Shills and Nincompoops:

 

My day job is writing distributed ledger technology legislation and regulations for state and tribal governments.  The following list is the minimum to conform as a security exempt token which I had integrated with the Colorado Utility Token Act. These criteria are based upon an analysis of the position of Colorado, Oklahoma, the SEC Clayton, Hinman and Turnkey Jet. 

If a token cannot meet these requirements, it is likely a security.

SECTION 2.  THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE A GUIDE FOR TOKEN CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAY BE SECURITIES EXEMPT:

 

OK DEP’T SECURITIES CRITERIA 

 

The value of the tokens must be fixed to the United States Dollar. Issuer will fix, peg and maintain the value of one distributed ledger technology asset to one United States Dollar, by depositing and maintaining any proceeds from the sale within federally insured banks.


 

The issuer will only maintain any asset backing in $USD within the United States, tribal or a state regulated financial institution and will have sufficient $USD assets on deposit to redeem any outstanding tokens.

 

Issuer will make complete disclosure, emphasize and obtain written agreement from any token holder that the token will be for their own use and not to be used for speculation or investments. 

 

The token will not be used in a manner to reflect features generally associated with those of securities, nor allowed to be used for voting rights or equitable ownership except within a duly organized and operated limited cooperative association. 

 

The issuer will establish mechanisms, such as an escrow account in order to sustain stable and sufficient funds to meet the immediate and total redemption of the tokens upon their consumptive use.

 

S.E.C. TURNKEY JET NO ACTION CRITERIA

Issuer will not use any funds from token sales to develop the issuer platform, network, or app, and each of these will be fully developed and operational at the time any tokens are sold;

 

Token will be immediately usable for their intended functionality at the time they are sold;
 

Issuer will restrict transfers of tokens to issuer wallets only, and not to wallets external to the platform;
 

Issuer will sell token at a fixed price throughout the life of the program, and each token will represent an issuer obligation for goods or services at a fixed value.
 

If issuer offers to repurchase token, it will only do so at a discount to the face value of the token that the holder seeks to resell to issuer, unless a court within the United States orders issuer to liquidate the token; and
 

The token is marketed in a manner that emphasizes the functionality of the token, and not the potential for the increase in the market value of the token.  

The tokens will be immediately usable for their intended functionality at the time they are sold;

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm

 

 

S.E.C. DIRECTOR HINMAN CRITERIA

Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?

 

Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? 


 

Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?

 

Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise?


 

Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?

 

Are purchasers “investing,” that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network? 


 

Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? 

 

Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?


 

Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?

 

CONTRACTUAL AND TECHNICAL STRUCTURES WHICH SUPPORT CONSUMPTIVE, NON-SPECULATIVE, AND NON-INVESTOR USE-CASES.

 

Is token creation commensurate with meeting the needs of users or, rather, with feeding speculation?

 

Are independent actors setting the price or is the promoter supporting the secondary market for the asset or otherwise influencing trading?

Is it clear that the primary motivation for purchasing the digital asset is for personal use or consumption, as compared to investment?

 

Have purchasers made representations as to their consumptive, as opposed to their investment, intent? 


 

Are the tokens available in increments that correlate with a consumptive versus investment intent?

 

Are the tokens distributed in ways to meet users’ needs? For example, can the tokens be held or transferred only in amounts that correspond to a purchaser’s expected use?


 

Are there built-in incentives that compel using the tokens promptly on the network, such as having the tokens degrade in value over time, or can the tokens be held for extended periods for investment?


 

Is the asset marketed and distributed to potential users or the general public?

 

Are the assets dispersed across a diverse user base or concentrated in the hands of a few that can exert influence over the application?


 

Is the application fully functioning or in early stages of development?

 

SEC CHAIRMAN JAY CLAYTON CRITERIA

 

Who exactly is the purchaser contracting with?

 

Who is issuing and sponsoring the product?

 

Location:  mailing address, phone number, web sites.

 

Access or available to interested qualified parties, permissively, upon request so as not to constitute a general solicitation.

 

Specific rights that accompany ownership of token.

 

Trading data will be made available in real time on the company’s web site and reported on a monthly basis in accordance with GATT, and annually audited by a leading and reputable accounting firm.  


 

How, when and at what cost can the token be sold? 

 

If a digital wallet is involved, and key is lost, will the owner still be able to have access to the underlying asset?

 

If a blockchain is used, is the blockchain open and public? 

 

Has the offering been structured to comply with the securities laws, regulations and rules?

 

What are the legal protections in event of fraud, hack or downturn in business prospects?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
13 minutes ago, Sporticus said:

To All Ripple-XRP Cultists, Shills and Nincompoops:

Sigh.    I did try to gently point out to you that your credibility here is completely shot by your inability to hide your massive bias.

I suppose the risk of educating you about that is that you might become a more effective fud purveyor if you were able to hide that bias more effectively.  But it’s fairly clear there is no risk of that.   :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sporticus said:

To All Ripple-XRP Cultists, Shills and Nincompoops:

 

My day job is writing distributed ledger technology legislation and regulations for state and tribal governments.  The following list is the minimum to conform as a security exempt token which I had integrated with the Colorado Utility Token Act. These criteria are based upon an analysis of the position of Colorado, Oklahoma, the SEC Clayton, Hinman and Turnkey Jet. 

If a token cannot meet these requirements, it is likely a security.

SECTION 2.  THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE A GUIDE FOR TOKEN CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAY BE SECURITIES EXEMPT:

 

OK DEP’T SECURITIES CRITERIA 

 

The value of the tokens must be fixed to the United States Dollar. Issuer will fix, peg and maintain the value of one distributed ledger technology asset to one United States Dollar, by depositing and maintaining any proceeds from the sale within federally insured banks.


 

The issuer will only maintain any asset backing in $USD within the United States, tribal or a state regulated financial institution and will have sufficient $USD assets on deposit to redeem any outstanding tokens.

 

Issuer will make complete disclosure, emphasize and obtain written agreement from any token holder that the token will be for their own use and not to be used for speculation or investments. 

 

The token will not be used in a manner to reflect features generally associated with those of securities, nor allowed to be used for voting rights or equitable ownership except within a duly organized and operated limited cooperative association. 

 

The issuer will establish mechanisms, such as an escrow account in order to sustain stable and sufficient funds to meet the immediate and total redemption of the tokens upon their consumptive use.

 

S.E.C. TURNKEY JET NO ACTION CRITERIA

Issuer will not use any funds from token sales to develop the issuer platform, network, or app, and each of these will be fully developed and operational at the time any tokens are sold;

 

Token will be immediately usable for their intended functionality at the time they are sold;
 

Issuer will restrict transfers of tokens to issuer wallets only, and not to wallets external to the platform;
 

Issuer will sell token at a fixed price throughout the life of the program, and each token will represent an issuer obligation for goods or services at a fixed value.
 

If issuer offers to repurchase token, it will only do so at a discount to the face value of the token that the holder seeks to resell to issuer, unless a court within the United States orders issuer to liquidate the token; and
 

The token is marketed in a manner that emphasizes the functionality of the token, and not the potential for the increase in the market value of the token.  

The tokens will be immediately usable for their intended functionality at the time they are sold;

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm

 

 

S.E.C. DIRECTOR HINMAN CRITERIA

Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?

 

Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? 


 

Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?

 

Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise?


 

Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?

 

Are purchasers “investing,” that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network? 


 

Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? 

 

Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?


 

Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?

 

CONTRACTUAL AND TECHNICAL STRUCTURES WHICH SUPPORT CONSUMPTIVE, NON-SPECULATIVE, AND NON-INVESTOR USE-CASES.

 

Is token creation commensurate with meeting the needs of users or, rather, with feeding speculation?

 

Are independent actors setting the price or is the promoter supporting the secondary market for the asset or otherwise influencing trading?

Is it clear that the primary motivation for purchasing the digital asset is for personal use or consumption, as compared to investment?

 

Have purchasers made representations as to their consumptive, as opposed to their investment, intent? 


 

Are the tokens available in increments that correlate with a consumptive versus investment intent?

 

Are the tokens distributed in ways to meet users’ needs? For example, can the tokens be held or transferred only in amounts that correspond to a purchaser’s expected use?


 

Are there built-in incentives that compel using the tokens promptly on the network, such as having the tokens degrade in value over time, or can the tokens be held for extended periods for investment?


 

Is the asset marketed and distributed to potential users or the general public?

 

Are the assets dispersed across a diverse user base or concentrated in the hands of a few that can exert influence over the application?


 

Is the application fully functioning or in early stages of development?

 

SEC CHAIRMAN JAY CLAYTON CRITERIA

 

Who exactly is the purchaser contracting with?

 

Who is issuing and sponsoring the product?

 

Location:  mailing address, phone number, web sites.

 

Access or available to interested qualified parties, permissively, upon request so as not to constitute a general solicitation.

 

Specific rights that accompany ownership of token.

 

Trading data will be made available in real time on the company’s web site and reported on a monthly basis in accordance with GATT, and annually audited by a leading and reputable accounting firm.  


 

How, when and at what cost can the token be sold? 

 

If a digital wallet is involved, and key is lost, will the owner still be able to have access to the underlying asset?

 

If a blockchain is used, is the blockchain open and public? 

 

Has the offering been structured to comply with the securities laws, regulations and rules?

 

What are the legal protections in event of fraud, hack or downturn in business prospects?

 

From what I have seen the SEC is targeting  dodgy ICOs

ripple didn’t have one...case closed.

also as you are someone in the “know” any guesses why the SEC have not gone after ripple, yet they have targeted quite a few obviously scammy tokens / groups.

 

Edited by LiquidGoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R

54 minutes ago, LiquidGoat said:

From what I have seen the SEC is targeting  dodgy ICOs

ripple didn’t have one...case closed.

also as you are someone in the “know” any guesses why the SEC have not gone after ripple, yet they have targeted quite a few obviously scammy tokens / groups.

 

Ripple used our money well to protect themselves and has former SEC staff lawyers representing them. They are very cozy with the regulators, they can afford to pay for the best lawyers, in the same manner that Jeffrey Epstein and  OJ  could afford the best.

If you bother to read the list I posted, which is the SEC and a couple of states' positions on tokens, Ripple easily fits within the definition of a security. Ethereum was a security and it segued out of that mode because it stopped selling tokens to fund its platform.  Ripple is still selling tokens to fund itself and to fund use cases for XRP and brazenly continues to do so all the while misrepresenting the securities characterization of their issue.

The SEC has determined  that Bitcoin and Ethereum are not securities, but the number three market cap coin  has not had the SEC asserting a position on its securities status and has been conspicuously silent. It has been stated  Ripple is the longest running ICO in history. 

The SEC is political, the courts and juries  are not so much.  Ripple will simply not be able to dodge securities characterization before a jury and in a court of law. Facts are facts and the law is the law. 

One of the reasons I am biased against Ripple is because I was skeptical at first, but gradually I  believed what Ripple and the other supporters were saying about XRP, and over the past two and a haIf years I  discovered it's a massive fraud. 

There is the claim that there is a use case, and they were targeting a $27 trillion market, which is 27 thousand billion dollars. Today, the volume barely got over a billion and most of that was bots. That is about 1/27,000th market share of their target market. I could go on and on.  But I do not have to. I am moving on. 

I still have some., at one time I had a lot, but the next time it moves up close to my entry, if it does, I am dumping. Had I stayed in litecoin or ethereum I would be at least $2,000,000 ahead of where I am at, even at current prices.  Yeah, I am biased, my vote is that  they put Garliccottage in a cell with a yard monster who has  a peculiar liking to bearded chickens.

Share this post


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

Sigh.    I did try to gently point out to you that your credibility here is completely shot by your inability to hide your massive bias.

I suppose the risk of educating you about that is that you might become a more effective fud purveyor if you were able to hide that bias more effectively.  But it’s fairly clear there is no risk of that.   :) 

You are biased for Ripple/XRP and that makes you a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum always has a few salty people who hate Ripple ideologically or simply bought XRP at higher prices and sold or are holding at a loss.

They can't/couldn't handle waiting for the use case to develop, so they have already rationalized in their mind that Ripple will fail in the future so they create all of these reasons (usually unoriginal, blatantly FUD based) as to why their decision that Ripple sucks is right.

My 2 zerps

Ripple created one of the most elaborate multi billion dollar scams that the world has ever seen, and have managed to hoodwink huge entities such as MoneyGram, SBI, Santander, The Fed, SEC, etc etc for years. THAT is what you have to believe. I'll apply Occam's Razor

Who would even do business with 'just xCurrent' if they knew that the company selling the software was doing a bunch of illegal ****?

Edited by mrhat75

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...