PayPal Decides Not To Support XRP. Here Is Why

[solodeji]

https://heraldsheets.com/paypal-decides-not-to-support-xrp-here-is-why/

[Neurotoxin]

6 hours ago, solodeji said:

https://heraldsheets.com/paypal-decides-not-to-support-xrp-here-is-why/

That blows but it’s not really unexpected. XRP still doesn’t have regulatory clarity and is considered a security by most. Ripple needs to find a way to further distribute XRP in order to not hold the majority and in a timely manner whilst also not crashing the price. Idk how that can be done other than burning tokens which, at least to me, sounds terrible. 

[jetbrzzz]

Quote

Additionally, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) has approved four more cryptocurrencies for trading, but XRP still remains excluded.

The new four assets added to those listed by PayPal are Binance USD (BUSD), Gemini Dollar (GUSD), Pax Gold (PAXG), and Paxos Standard (PAX).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For instance, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash as a result, Litecoin, which are very similar, and Ethereum have essentially been grandfathered in by the SEC, Bitcoin explicitly and Ethereum explicitly. And once you start getting away from these top four, there are always a little bit of questions around them. Not just for us, but for the industry in general. So that’s something we need to be sensitive about.”

I'm really curious about the logic these regulators like Gary Gensler are using to define XRP as a Ripple security. Gensler said the same thing about Ethereum but somehow they got a pass.  An asset isn't a security simply because 1 group owns a ton of it or because Ripple "made" XRP (arguable). Clearly Satoshi's personal stashes of BTC aren't a security, and he/they actually CREATED Bitcoin.

If it's because Ripple "created" XRP, I don't understand how something like Gemini Dollar, created by the Gemini exchange/Twins isn't also a security by the same weirdo logic.

Quote

The term "security" refers to a fungible, negotiable financial instrument that holds some type of monetary value. It represents an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation via stock; a creditor relationship with a governmental body or a corporation represented by owning that entity's bond; or rights to ownership as represented by an option.

There's 3 basic tenets in the definition:

1) it has monetary value (and fungible AKA all $1 bills are interchangeable with all other $1 bills)

AND

2) represents ownership in a publicly traded corporation (AKA you own the company's stock)

OR

3) is a bond or stock option (i.e. US treasury bond or option on a stock)

Obviously #2 and #3 don't apply to XRP; Linqto sells private Ripple stock (proxy), buying XRP does not give you ownership of that stock at all.

And by definition XRP isn't a bond or option; XRP isn't an option on Ripple stock. In other words, XRP isn't the underlie of Ripple stock. You can't buy XRP on an options platform as a call or put against Ripple stock.

The two instruments XRP and Ripple stock have a separate value altogether. The only thing I could even see as an argument is that they are possibly correlated, but that still doesn't give you ownership of one by owning the other. Owning a gold coin doesn't give you ownership of a gold miner's stock; gold is not  a security.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So all that's left is #1, it has monetary value/fungible/is financial instrument, which every other crypto is as well.

So idk I don't think they can put their logic out there cause it would get shredded publicly.

Edited November 15, 2020 by jetbrzzz

[WarChest]

Maybe Brad and the C level team need to do more to get XRP regulation where it needs to be.

I haven’t any sympathy for the Board, they are earning huge amounts and I don’t feel that I am wrong in saying that they need to do even better. It’s been 2 years since they put that advert in the Newspaper and on the face of it the shot across the bows has been shrugged away.

I am not a fan of Brad G, something about him comes across to me as ineffective. I can’t quite put my finger on it, he is a bit show biz.

Edited November 15, 2020 by WarChest

[jetbrzzz]

1 hour ago, WarChest said:

Maybe Brad and the C level team need to do more to get XRP regulation where it needs to be.

Personally I don't think it's Ripple's job to try to convince XYZ that 2 + 2 = 4, that's what the SEC and Co. is for, to define things so others know the rules. Could you imagine being Saudi oil producer trying to convince the world that oil isn't a security, you'd get laughed at because it's so obviously not.

Whatever litigation they're still under, I just don't see the logic in an XRP = securities declaration. I read some of the current lawsuits, it's a bunk argument(s) honestly. These lawyers are crying because investors they represent bought high and sold low and they're just grasping at straws to get a "technical" win. "They said and implied it was gonna go up, look! look! they lied, and it's a security, we want our money back...."

It's pretty nonsense.

Example: Barrick Gold (miner) has zero obligation to anyone who holds gold as an investment, price or otherwise.

Supposedly Judge Hamilton is assuming XRP is already a security while hearing the case, which doesn't make sense. You'd think there would be a burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove this first, not have a judge assume something is already true without proof AND THEN rule using that assumption.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17123007/1/bitcoin-manipulation-abatement-llc-v-ripple-labs-inc/

Look at the LLC suing, Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement LLC.........what is that even??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ripple is already valued at $10 billion or more, I don't think they're going to go bankrupt. Let's say a court rules XRP a security, they lose the consolidated lawsuit, and there's a judgement to return "all the money invested in XRP". How would a court even put a number on that and distributed to whom? Every single person who bought XRP low and sold high now has to pay for everyone else who did the opposite? Or would Ripple just have to pay off those in the lawsuit; I don't know if it would rule as class-action, a major ruling like that is certainly wide reaching in scope.

They're gonna be in court till at least 2023 supposedly, so we'll see, that's a long time to get clarity strictly through legal means. Should the SEC lay out non-security clarity before then, they could probably get most of the lawsuits thrown out since the premise of most of them is this assumption/narrative/opening statement that XRP is a security.

Edited November 15, 2020 by jetbrzzz

[WarChest]

4 hours ago, jetbrzzz said:

Personally I don't think it's Ripple's job to try to convince XYZ that 2 + 2 = 4, that's what the SEC and Co. is for, to define things so others know the rules. Could you imagine being Saudi oil producer trying to convince the world that oil isn't a security, you'd get laughed at because it's so obviously not.

I think that it is Ripple's job to get top value for their investors, If that means, which I think it does, that getting XRP to a place that Ethereum and Bitcoin are WRT regulation then they should be doing that. Ripple's current wealth of $10B is based on the XRP that they hold (or am I wrong there?). They should be achieving that parity of regulation with BTC and Ethereum, and if they are going to do that then it's the C listers that have to own that task.

I have no axe to grind with Brad G or Chris L or any one else, but as this is a message board I thought that I'd add some of my feelings. When I see video of Brad in a room with the heavy weights I don't get the impression that he has the same gravitas as the others, or that he ever will. Sure he is more talented than I am in the boardroom, but we shouldn't compare him to me, but to the movers and shakers. Ripple is 8 years old now and for Paypal not to list XRP is a failure of Ripple's team.

FYI I am now roughly break even at this very moment in time so I am not someone that has lost money and is whining about a bad choice. I believe that XRP will make me a tidy profit, but I do think that by now it should be higher value and I do think Ripple management should shoulder some of that blame.

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by WarChest

[jetbrzzz]

7 hours ago, WarChest said:

I think that it is Ripple's job to get top value for their investors, If that means, which I think it does, that getting XRP to a place that Ethereum and Bitcoin are WRT regulation then they should be doing that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ripple is 8 years old now and for Paypal not to list XRP is a failure of Ripple's team.

A bank isn't allowed to tell the SEC what laws it makes/regulates, that would be a disaster.

It's true a business is beholden to its shareholders but I disagree that Ripple has some obligation to increase the value of an asset on the open market. Sure it would be great for shareholders, but you can't conflate the two.

(Ripple stock -> shareholders vs XRP -> oil-like commodity).

Again, if you went to a gold miner or an oil producer and demand they somehow go convince the open market that gold should be $10,000 an ounce or oil $1000 a barrel, they would look at you weird. Their job isn't to dictate the open market value of an asset they have association with, and honestly they wouldn't be able to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exxon-Mobil doesn't dictate the value of the oil they sell/produce, the open market does (supply and demand). Blaming Exxon execs because oil wasn't a certain average price is a little silly. Of course Exxon is trying to maximize profit for its shareholders, but trying to control the price of oil in an open market isn't one of the ways it does that.

Pretend I'm a Saudi oil prince sitting on billions of gallons of oil and then I demand that Exxon-Mobil convince the oil market to value oil at a higher price than $40...I want $1000 a barrel! Then I say, "Oil is only $40 a barrel on the open market? This is Exxon-Mobil's fault, I blame their board and execs! As a holder of oil, I deserve that they, that singular company, make the free market increase the price!"

Sounds silly when I say it that way, with the same logic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think Ripple has any control over what another company decides to do and pegging the success or failure of a company to another is unfair.

Let's say I'm Cotton Joe LLC and Uniqlo Japan doesn't want to buy my cotton for its clothing line because the Japanese government is anti-cotton. Say Uniqlo wants polyester and nylon but not cotton. Is Uniqlo not wanting to use my cotton (under threat of government litigation) my fault? (Obviously I'd move to markets and businesses that have demand for cotton.)

Then let's say the Japanese government does a 180, decides cotton is awesomely soft and now "legal", e.g. you won't go to jail for making 100% cotton t-shirts.  Now Cotton Joe LLC can do zee business with Uniqlo Japan, release a Cotton Joe X Uniqlo designer line, happy ever after (PayPal accepting XRP, etc).

Edited November 15, 2020 by jetbrzzz

[WarChest]

1 hour ago, jetbrzzz said:

bank

 

1 hour ago, jetbrzzz said:

isn't allowed to tell the SEC what laws it makes/regulates, that would be a disaster.

It's true a business is beholden to its shareholders but I disagree that Ripple has some obligation to increase the value of an asset on the open market. Sure it would be great for shareholders, but you can't conflate the two.

I never said that a bank can tell SEC what laws it makes, I said that after 8 years Ripple C listers should be able to get XRP to the same level of regulatory acceptance as BTC and Eth.

Ripple has an obligation to its shareholders to increase the value of the company to give them a return. If Ripples main wealth comes from BTC it follows that they should have a policy of increasing the value of it, plus we are told the Ripples products can only be successful if XRP is worth more. It follows that Ripple board is responsible for making XRP worth more through legitimising it’s use case via regulatory certainty to make it more appealing to banks. 
 

 

[jetbrzzz]

15 minutes ago, WarChest said:

 

I never said that a bank can tell SEC what laws it makes, I said that after 8 years Ripple C listers should be able to get XRP to the same level of regulatory acceptance as BTC and Eth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If Ripples main wealth comes from BTC it follows that they should have a policy of increasing the value of it, plus we are told the Ripples products can only be successful if XRP is worth more. It follows that Ripple board is responsible for making XRP worth more through legitimising it’s use case via regulatory certainty to make it more appealing to banks.

 

I know you didn't make that statement, I did, as an example that the tail doesn't wag the dog, it's the other way around.

What you're saying in a nutshell is that it is Ripple's responsibility to make/convince the SEC pass favorable regulation for XRP. ("get XRP to same level of regulatory acceptance/legitimize its use case via regulatory certainty")

What's a real-life example of Ripple "legitimizing use case via regulatory certainty"? Is regulatory certainty the same as regulatory clarity in your mind or did you mean something else?

Because it's the SEC's job to determine regulatory clarity, as stated by Ripple execs (which is what they have been say through tweets, interviews, etc)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This argument is flawed from a commodities viewpoint.  You're still passing over that XRP is a commodity all together and assuming that a single company has any control over the price of a commodity on the open market.

If you're assuming XRP is money/currency and not a commodity, fine, but what's the argument then, that a company which has 'money' now has responsibility to make that money worth more?  That would make no sense, "I have X dollars but I want it to be worth more than it already is".

Meaning, not increasing the amount of money you hold from say having $10 to having $100, but to make $10 worth more than what $10 is worth. Like how?

[WarChest]

8 hours ago, jetbrzzz said:

What you're saying in a nutshell is that it is Ripple's responsibility to make/convince the SEC pass favorable regulation for XRP. ("get XRP to same level of regulatory acceptance/legitimize its use case via regulatory certainty")

 

Yes, that’s my premis.

8 hours ago, jetbrzzz said:

Is regulatory certainty the same as regulatory clarity in your mind

Yes and no. we can argue semantics, but we need regulation that falls positively for xrp

8 hours ago, jetbrzzz said:

You're still passing over that XRP is a commodity all together and assuming that a single company has any control over the price of a commodity on the open market.

 

No, I am not, Ripple’s USP is that they can improve xborder payments using XRP, they know that their product only "works "  for that if XRP has a higher value, one barrier to this is regulatory uncertainty, what asset class is XRP according to US financial authorities? Ripple as a business must lobby hard that XRP is classed so as to enable their products and therefor remove a blocker to success. No one else will.

Edited November 16, 2020 by WarChest

[jetbrzzz]

9 hours ago, WarChest said:

Yes and no. we can argue semantics, but we need regulation that falls positively for xrp

No, I am not, Ripple’s USP is that they can improve xborder payments using XRP, they know that their product only "works "  for that if XRP has a higher value, one barrier to this is regulatory uncertainty, what asset class is XRP according to US financial authorities? Ripple as a business must lobby hard that XRP is classed so as to enable their products and therefor remove a blocker to success. No one else will.

So you're saying that it's Ripple's job to lobby to get regulation passed, and if the SEC decides to not ever pass regulation in favor of Ripple, that's Ripple's fault because they just didn't try hard enough to convince the SEC that XRP isn't a security.

I understand that viewpoint. I still don't agree that you can blame a company because a government won't recognize a crypto as 'not a security'.

I agree there should be definitive regulation passed, but that's on the SEC to get their heads out of the sand. You got Clayton saying "All ICOs are securities" and other such blanket statements. That definition worked for Kik's Ku-Coin, which had an 'initial investment' round for the coin to benefit the shareholders of Kik; they didn't follow securities laws for distribution so they got the boot and a $5 million fine. Passes the Howey test for securities, done.

Any way the SEC defines it, XRP doesn't meet any of the criteria they're laying out which is why the SEC is so frustrating. By textbook definition of a security, it's black and white, XRP isn't a a security.  So they're grasping at straws, "Welllllll, Ripple re-invested the money from XRP sales into the company infrastructure, so AHA! That's almost like an ICO, and we declare all ICOs are securities, XRP is a security!!" With logic like theirs, cats are dogs and dogs are cows so cats are cows.

In any case this actually is a US only issue right now, Japan has already defined XRP as "virtual currency". Personally I've always thought the label of 'virtual commodity' makes more sense but that's me.