Jump to content
ringer2

Security complaint

Recommended Posts

XRP mentioned in the Federal Register :: Remittance Transfers Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E)

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/06/2019-25944/remittance-transfers-under-the-electronic-fund-transfer-act-regulation-e

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-06/pdf/2019-25944.pdf  (page 11)

Defines XRP as a virtual currency, Not as a security. This is directly from the Government of USA, dated December 6th 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Caracappa said:

Oh boy... So these are the sources you base your negative sentiment on. You're being informed by cryptoslate. I thought you researched, but you just take tabloid quality sites for real.

Read the other articles they provide. They, just like you, don't like XRP and Ripple.

"Why do people think I'm a troll, I don't get it..."

What are you doing here anyway the price is trending up currently.

I wasn’t arguing it is a security.  I don’t know and don’t really care.  But the absolute presumption that many in here have that there is no possible way it is doesn’t hold water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Asen4XRP said:

XRP mentioned in the Federal Register :: Remittance Transfers Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E)

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/06/2019-25944/remittance-transfers-under-the-electronic-fund-transfer-act-regulation-e

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-06/pdf/2019-25944.pdf  (page 11)

Defines XRP as a virtual currency, Not as a security. This is directly from the Government of USA, dated December 6th 2019.

That is a legitimate argument. But the government can overturn and release conflicting rulings all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ringer2 said:

That is a legitimate argument. But the government can overturn and release conflicting rulings all the time. 

The EFT Act does not control the SEC's determination of the security status of XRP. 

The SEC and the US District Court are not bound by this federal register citation in relation to a securities characterization.  Notwithstanding, a distributed ledger technology asset like XRP can be both a virtual currency and a security. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 8:37 PM, Undershoes said:

None of that is new evidence. They are the same arguments, rehashed. 

Much of the material which you refer to as argument, if reliably reported, are admissions of an agent and constitute evidence supporting a violation of the US securities laws. What strikes me about Ripple is that they have been heavy on tech and business types like Schwartz and Garlinghouse, but early on they did not have a sense of the legal significance of what they were doing or how they were operating a new business which retained vestiges of a money services  business and a securities exchange offering which they were boldly used  to finance their platform and enrich themselves. You see it most problematically when FinCEN caught up with Ripple et al and they were required to enter a consent agreement with a fine or face criminal  indictment.  BSA and AML are big issues in the money remittance business and with legitimate  financial institutions everywhere.  A really astonishing naivete'  seems to inform any objective viewer of Ripple's actions in the securities and money services business realms from the company's inception.  Typically, financial institutions have trained legal counsel as compliance officers calling the shots. Proceeding with Schwartz as the combined PR, IR  and compliance guy is hilarious and amateurish, it goes with his unique sense of dress and hair-styling. Garlinghouse is somewhat better in his sartorail discretion, but he inherited a hot mess from Jed McCaleb and Chris Larsen. 

Below are excerpted references to SEC  Director William Hinman, which were remarks in a 2018 speech he gave called "When Howey Met Gary (Plastics)".  There is a tendency of the lay person to gloss over the significance of such language, but this is the position of the SEC in the summer of 2018 and since then, the noose around the crypto neck is being pulled tighter. To ignore such language is a good way to get a jail address.

Quote

 

The impetus of the Securities Act is to remove the information asymmetry between promoters and investors. In a public distribution, the Securities Act prescribes the information investors need to make an informed investment decision, and the promoter is liable for material misstatements in the offering materials.

 

If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract.

 

Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede.

As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful.

Without a regulatory framework that promotes disclosure of what the third party alone knows of these topics and the risks associated with the venture, investors will be uninformed and are at risk.

 

 

Edited by Sporticus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ringer2 said:

I wasn’t arguing it is a security.  I don’t know and don’t really care.  But the absolute presumption that many in here have that there is no possible way it is doesn’t hold water. 

The really disturbing issue is that Ripple has been using XRP to finance its operations just like what is done with a security, but the company and its officers persist in trying to misrepresent to  the investing public that it is not a security, when they would have been better off to remain silent. It seems though that Ripple needed the money from the sale of XRP to expand their operation and admitting that XRP is a security or seeking a determination of the securities status could  have cut in to their profits.

 Ripple has lulled the investor (like many of you XRP Chatters) into assuming the risk to their investment, if XRP is deemed a security. The value of XRP and Ripple are likely to be greatly reduced if Ripple is determined a security.   The likelihood that the judge and jury  will apply the securities laws and the Howey test  to Ripple's  token issuance operation is overwhelmingly likely.  ( Howey test requires an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others.) I have not seen any valid arguments which would allow Ripple to avoid a securities characterization in a court of law based upon the facts of the Ripple and XRP relationship. 

I assign the tendency of stupid people  to persist in mistaken notions and to  try to school  informed experts to the Dunning Kruger effect.  Coined in 1999, by then-Cornell psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the eponymous Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence.

Oftentimes, the people who benefit most from deluding or conning the ignorant  are far from stupid, but are unscrupulous and greedy,  and that is why securities laws are in place: to protect stupid people from the greedy and unscrupulous con men. 

Edited by Sporticus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sporticus said:
17 hours ago, ringer2 said:

 

The really disturbing issue is that Ripple has been using XRP to finance its operations just like what is done with a security, but the company and its officers persist in trying to misrepresent to  the investing public that it is not a security

You mean like an oil company sells its asset (oil) and is naughty enough to use it for its own operations?

I don’t know for sure,  but your text walls remind me of someone trying to look more of an expert than they really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eos is not a security according to the Sec and the developers used eos to fund their operations . Worst case ripple pays a fine and that’s it.

 

Besides Ripple already paid a fine for selling xrp back in the old days, you can bet that they are doing everything according to the book.

Edited by Zerp_Legend

Share this post


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

The really disturbing issue is that Ripple has been using XRP to finance its operations just like what is done with a security, but the company and its officers persist in trying to misrepresent to  the investing public that it is not a security, when they would have been better off to remain silent. It seems though that Ripple needed the money from the sale of XRP to expand their operation and admitting that XRP is a security or seeking a determination of the securities status could  have cut in to their profits.

 Ripple has lulled the investor (like many of you XRP Chatters) into assuming the risk to their investment, if XRP is deemed a security. The value of XRP and Ripple are likely to be greatly reduced if Ripple is determined a security.   The likelihood that the judge and jury  will apply the securities laws and the Howey test  to Ripple's  token issuance operation is overwhelmingly likely.  ( Howey test requires an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others.) I have not seen any valid arguments which would allow Ripple to avoid a securities characterization in a court of law based upon the facts of the Ripple and XRP relationship. 

I assign the tendency of stupid people  to persist in mistaken notions and to  try to school  informed experts to the Dunning Kruger effect.  Coined in 1999, by then-Cornell psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the eponymous Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence.

Oftentimes, the people who benefit most from deluding or conning the ignorant  are far from stupid, but are unscrupulous and greedy,  and that is why securities laws are in place: to protect stupid people from the greedy and unscrupulous con men. 


The way Ripple and its senior staff handles the discussion can add some questionmarks. However they were asked multiple times on the spot in interviews (which is a good thing) if XRP is deemed a security. What should they answer other then that they do not believe so. They don't engage the discussion out of nowhere.

The big difference with BTC and ETH for example is that XRP has a (few) company behind it actively developing for it. With that it matches the four points of the howey test although partial discussion is about investment in a common enterprise. Arguments can be met both ways as Ripple holds majority of XRP so they indirectly benefit from investors buying XRP. On the other hand people do not buy directly from Ripple and in that way are not investing in a company. Aside from that, Howey is not the only test court can use to determine if something is a security.

Part of the discussion is also about if these ancient 1933 rules still apply in 2020 to this new kind of assets and if they can be put into existing boxes. Seeing some new proposals enter the discussion makes me bullish on the end result, and explains the time it took. Current cases can only create outcomes into current existing boxes (security, commodity etc) and perhaps that is not the prefered result.

I do not know enough about US law (because... more countries in the world you know) but I do know the US discussion is important. We will hear more on 15th of January correct? 

Share this post


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

You mean like an oil company sells its asset (oil) and is naughty enough to use it for its own operations?

I don’t know for sure,  but your text walls remind me of someone trying to look more of an expert than they really are...

Taking the same argument, BTC miners selling BTC to fund their operations...

The problem with a lot of points in these discussions are they don't go further then "Look, this matches some of the criteria so it proves it is this or this". The discussion is more complex.

This thing with four weels can bring me from A to B, so it must be a horse.

 

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...