Ripple/XRP Securities Hearing January 15th

[Sporticus]

https://www.scribd.com/document/433524568/XRP-Plaintiff-Response-to-Ripple-s-Motion-to-Dismiss#from_embed

[pucksterpete]

@Sporticus and you have shorted XRP  

[peanut56]

So now we wait ten days, to see what is actually going to happen.

[Eric123]

Here is the thing.  This is just a response to Ripple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  If the motion is granted it is great for Ripple.  If the motion is denied that is not the end of it.  The case will just continue to proceed perhaps for years.  It will not be decided whether or not XRP is a security on the 15th.  In the end Guidance from the SEC is what is needed.

[Talinos]

Nice read anyway. They have strong arguments tbh. Never thought about the origin of my own xrp. My XRP could have been already be owned by David Schwartz . 

[Sporticus]

On 1/5/2020 at 6:56 AM, Eric123 said:

Here is the thing.  This is just a response to Ripple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  If the motion is granted it is great for Ripple.  If the motion is denied that is not the end of it.  The case will just continue to proceed perhaps for years.  It will not be decided whether or not XRP is a security on the 15th.  In the end Guidance from the SEC is what is needed.

I think you might mean "guidance from the SEC favorable to the non-securities status of XRP".  The SEC has provided guidance in multiple instances; simply said, the SEC  guidance provided to date does not favor Ripple/XRP exemption from the U.S. securities laws. The guidance from the SEC is easily understood and I post links below.

Here is the SEC regulatory guidance I could find  on point to date.   

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

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/pocketful-quarters-inc-072519-2a1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JJwEz8x9UstvJFQ1buAXJe_zXkVrp8a_P7sWxLKCwKY/edit

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Sporticus
typo

[QWE]

12 hours ago, Sporticus said:

I think you might mean "guidance from the SEC favorable to the non-securities status of XRP".  The SEC has provided guidance in multiple instances; simply said, the SEC  guidance provided to date does not favor Ripple/XRP exemption from the U.S. securities laws. The guidance from the SEC is easily understood and I post links below.

Here is the SEC regulatory guidance I could find  on point to date.   

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

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/pocketful-quarters-inc-072519-2a1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JJwEz8x9UstvJFQ1buAXJe_zXkVrp8a_P7sWxLKCwKY/edit

 

@Sporticus, all @Eric123 is saying is that the question of XRP being a security will not be answered on January 15th, no matter if Ripple’s motion to dismiss is granted or denied (which this topic is supposedly about). You can at least agree with that.

The fact that you are shorting XRP (as you stated in another topic) based on your opinion that XRP is a security is very dangerous in the world of crypto, and yesterdays +10% movement within a matter of minutes/hours is a testimony to that. A lot can happen between now and the time XRP gets declared a security, if that even ever happens. You should be wary of margin calls and theoretical unlimited loss in short positions in an illiquid crypto market with regular random sudden movements. This is not a fortune 500 stock, but an asset in an unpredictable and manipulated environment.

I really appreciate your comments and your experience dealing with the SEC, but your posts are extremely unbalanced (from extremely positive some time ago to extremely negative recently), nothing is completely white or completely black. I will enjoy reading your insights on the securities topic in the future, but would truly appreciate a more balanced outlook, presenting what you think may happen in a more objective way.

 

To get back on topic, the document you linked in your original post was uploaded by Coindesk, so I am expecting an article from their side soon. They usually get a few experts to comment on the topic, so it should be interesting to read.

 

EDIT: Since OP links to Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss, it would only be fair to also link Ripple's reply to that response, which was filed AFTER Plaintiff's response and seems to be the last official document on the matter that I could find: https://www.scribd.com/document/438446249/Ripple-Reply-to-Response

Edited January 7, 2020 by QWE

[DirectorCoulson]

Unpopular opinion :

 

while foreign ponzi schemes like eth and btc have obtained regulatory clarity, WITHOUT HUGE LEGAL TEAMS, ripple struggles to get clarification from the SEC. IMO the SEC is manipulating the market with its bullshit show they put on. AND apparently there is no need for a huge legal team looking at btc eth. 

 

[Talinos]

20 hours ago, DirectorCoulson said:

Unpopular opinion :

while foreign ponzi schemes like eth and btc have obtained regulatory clarity, WITHOUT HUGE LEGAL TEAMS, ripple struggles to get clarification from the SEC. IMO the SEC is manipulating the market with its bullshit show they put on. AND apparently there is no need for a huge legal team looking at btc eth. 

 

Dont get me wrong but in my view you did not think that thought quite to the end. Which company stands behind the puplishment of btc - none. So its pretty hard to classify it as security. Also ETH was a crowdfunding in early days if I remember correctly. So this one is obviuos to. The legal situation behind opencoin and ripple is pretty much different  and waaaayyyyy more complex. Thats also the reason i dont expect a statement soon nothing to do with manipulation.