Jump to content

XRP sales are "negligible amounts compared to our other funding" says CTO

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, QWE said:


Hi @Sporticus, could you specifically name what changed in your view since you wrote XRP is not a security about a year and a half ago?



What exactly did you and your wife both miss when you "researched the XRP as securities topic thoroughly"? As I understand from your posts, you now believe that XRP was a security from the moment Ripple started selling it? Or did something change in the last year and a half?

I have gone back and forth on Ripple. Much of my belief was based upon Ripple's positioning and statements that there was an actual use case and that XRP was being used by banks. This unfortunately is only a minuscule  part of any XRP use after several years of Ripple's representations of XRapid deployment, now ODL. The law suit has been an eye opener.  The research of fact and law is fist rate.   In the final analysis, the position of the SEC has become more apparent with Turnkey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters no action letters.   Also, I have been working with the state and  SEC regulators directly on a no action position with a client and I have a first hand view of the SEC's and states' evolving positions.   The duty is not for the consumer to determine the securities status.  The duty is on the issuer to follow the securities laws. 

This is simply my view about my position with XRP  and I am not recommending anyone to do anything. But I have shorted  it. . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes yes. All very natural and organic. An avalanche of new accounts created in a bear market that exclusively spread FUD, in the year XRP went from a great idea to launching ODL and enabling mill

No words @JoelKatz... Preparing the exit yet? 

I suggest you read Davids tweet again (with an open mind if possible).   The thread he commented on was about ICO's.  If you then look at what David said in the tweet highlighted above, he was ta

Posted Images

I have a hard time believing how MoneyGram and the latest investors from the 200M funding round would touch Ripple with a 10ft pole if there were legitimate concerns about XRP being a security.

But then again why haven't we seen a no action letter if Ripple is working so closely with regulators? Related to jurisdiction where the SEC has basically said that Ripple might fall under FinCEN (who they've already dealt with in the past).

A lot of things don't make sense. This is one example. How about Brad's dozens of banks comment. How about a true state of regulations and what that roadmap looks like? These aren't easy things. But I think Ripple had done a fairly horseshit job on communicating the state of affairs to a retail market that absolute matters in this ecosystem.

Edited by mrhat75
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sporticus said:

I am really disappointed with Ripple that they did not seek an SEC no action position from the beginning in 2013, which would have been the ethical thing to do, and instead they have continued to shill that XRP is not a security when that issue is not finally determined by competent regulatory authority and seeking the securities determination  has been steadfastly avoided by the corporation. I relied upon the truth of Ripple's  assertions and I along with many others have suffered losses as a result of believing them and XRP advocates here and on other social media have been Ripple's useful idiots. 

What is your reasoning for this, do you think they are delaying just to sell XRP for a while longer?

I do find Ripple's apparent reluctance to do anything a bit suspicious. But then, the SEC isn't exactly all hands on deck either...  would they not have any legal responsibility to stop Ripple?

Edited by elias
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, elias said:

What is your reasoning for this, do you think they are delaying just to sell XRP for a while longer?

I do find Ripple's apparent reluctance to do anything a bit suspicious. But then, the SEC isn't exactly all hands on deck either...  would they not have any legal responsibility to stop Ripple?

My reasoning is based upon actually applying for no action positions for clients with state and SEC regulators. By immersing myself in the regulator's point of view I have come to understand more  what they want.  There is no way, that if I were to ask for a no action position on behalf of a client for a token organized like Ripple that I would succeed in today's regulatory climate.  There really is no "grandfather" clause for any of these tokens to protect them.  A securities  no action position does not protect as against third parties in civil litigation involving securities regulations. The courts and regulators will apply the law that exists and not what might be passed. 

 If there is an issue involving whether or not an instrument like XRP is a security, the manner by which that is resolved with the jurisdiction's regulators  is to apply to the securities regulators for a no action position. Ripple has an obligation to follow the rules, regs and laws pertaining to the nature of their offering. The fact that their's is a new tech does not let them off the hook. The fact that the SEC has held off on enforcing the securities laws with respect to Ripple has been a source of confusion, but it is no defense in a civil suit.  The fact and law that a party has a separate cause of action as a private citizen to enforce the securities laws has emerged as the real problem for Ripple and XRP.  The judge who is hearing the case in the US District Court for the  Northern District of California, has the sole duty to ascertain the facts and to apply the law that exists. The court   will not have the luxury to sit back and wait to see how crypto evolves as has been the oft announced  position of the SEC. Also, hiring former SEC lawyers to run interference with the SEC will not work with a court of law. 

Bottom line is that we are now seeing the existing securities law applied to crypto. In a real sense, none of the crypto is immune.  Just because the SEC has opined that Ethereum or Bitcoin are non-securities does in no way bind a court of law.  The deal that the SEC made with EOS is not binding on me, if I have been damaged by EOS or for that matter by holding bitcoin is likewise actionable.  Libra and Zuckerberg have not been able to get off the ground with regulators and they are using a stable coin design. Anyone can sue anyone and the so-called tech disrupters are finding themselves disrupted. Bitcoin miners and exchanges too are susceptible to being sued in the courts. Anyno action  positions of the SEC are more likely to be used as a sword than a shield. 

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...

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.