Jump to content

Does the SEC lawsuit mean jail time?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We have known this for a while and if you followed Ripple or Moneygram at all, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Hell, there have been articles written and MG has openly discussed this in their earni

The CEO of SBI has already spoken:  ODL has not failed. It is growing and thriving in other locals with regulatory clarity. The purpose of multihop was not to circumvent regulations but to,

6. Meanwhile, Larsen—Ripple’s initial chief executive officer (“CEO”) and current chairman of the Board—and Garlinghouse—Ripple’s current CEO—orchestrated these unlawful sales and personally profited

I am not sure I understand legal case at all. XRP was created when Ripple network was created and before Ripple as company was created. XRP was donated to company. So how can that be a security? Even if it is, its not your ownership (ownership as shares of company) that you are selling. 

 

For example. You open a company and donate REAL securities to your company, e.g. S&P ETF (index fund). Company then decides to sell that at any price it wants (its not against the law to sell assets of your own company for value you wish, and discounts are almost always applied in financial world, its the discount that underwriter of any IPO will make money on, and its the reason why underwriters are profitable, we are talking about real securities of real company during IPO not about donated XRP). What did Ripple do wrong then? Basically they received a gift that they are selling. 

 

Further more, what does it mean for ETH and USA market? Every token on ETH is basically a security then since they sold them during ICO to raise money.

 

I dont like this at all to be honest, but we will see what court will say. It could also be something very primitive, that Trump doesnt like when someone makes money as during his time in the office he decided to try to bust Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon. It could also be something in line that USD will this or next decade most likely loose status of reserve currency, and creating more currencies on blockchain might speed up that process.

 

Anyway, if fine is not large, if its not jail time, we will probably see Ripple removing its headquarters to another country soon but USA market might be lost for Ripple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Ethereum, there is some US companies that created tokens and sold them, Game Flip for example, while Ripple as company didnt even create XRP. So how come they are targeting only Ripple. I am pretty sure if someone makes a good research that he will come up with at least 100 companies registered in USA that created and sold crypto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AgamemnonUA said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jay-clayton-steps-down-as-sec-chairman-11608754042

He just resigned effective immediately!? Did Brad bang his wife or something??

Probably both him and his wife as the same time. Jay just had to tank XRP and screw over current retail investors before he left.

 

Trump probably pushed Jay into filing the SEC lawsuit against Ripple, before he left.  Sounds like they both prevously discussed Jay completing his last agenda items before leaving his role: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/clayton-2020-12-23

As we recently discussed, I am in the process of wrapping up my agenda and will depart on December 23rd.  I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays and all the best for the future.  Thank you again for the faith you placed in me to lead the wonderful women and men of the SEC.

I wouldn't be surprised if Brad personally pissed up Trump in the past, with involving Bill Clinton and his other pro Biden tweets.  Didn't Ripple have a meeting a while ago with the White house as well? That must have not went over so well.

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wogojump said:

Probably both him and his wife as the same time. Jay just had to tank XRP and screw over current retail investors before he left.

 

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/clayton-2020-12-23

 

J Clayton probably got his "ear yanked". Someone or a group of people higher up in government probably berated him for incompetence and asked for his resignation. How do you allow YEARS of sales to go on without stopping it to then submit this claim right before the Holidays, effectively tanking the price, manipulating it to go lower, without clear guidance for what's to come. Then they leave exchanges in a bind and FIs running to get rid of their holdings. This is incredibly foolish. How does someone get to the upper echelons of government without understanding basic management and risk management is beyond me. Incompetence at its best. I'm so upset I can barely type cohesively 

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

J Clayton probably got his "ear yanked". Someone or a group of people higher up in government probably berated him for incompetence and asked for his resignation. How do you allow YEARS of sales to go on without stopping it to then submit this claim right before the Holidays, effectively tanking the price, manipulating it to go lower, without clear guidance for what's to come. Then they leave exchanges in a bind and FIs running to get rid of their holdings. This is incredibly foolish. How does someone get to the upper echelons of government without understanding basic management and risk management is beyond me. Incompetence at its best. I'm so upset I can barely type cohesively 

Don't get it either. This is going on for years and only now, the day he leaves the SEC this lawsuit is dropped?

Link to post
Share on other sites

something important for everyone to also consider with this litigation and see if Ripple actually has any chance of winning this:

 

after re-reading the 71 page litigation i noticed now that "The Commission demands a trial by jury". Why this is important to me: i was a long believer of xrp for over 3 years and hodl up every moment. Yet, after reading all the 71 page report all the buzzes and alarms, that i did not want to see before, they became crystal clear of the game plan. With this i mean, imagening now a jury of 12 people without emotional attachment to xrp and ripple, what is the outcome here?

 

if i was able to read this as a ponzi scheme, what will the average joy understand/interpret? everyone should really make an introspection of what they are currently holding and future price action. 

Edited by buh
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buh said:

something important for everyone to also consider with this litigation and see if Ripple actually has any chance of winning this:

 

after re-reading the 71 page litigation i noticed now that "The Commission demands a trial by jury". Why this is important to me: i was a long believer of xrp for over 3 years and hodl up every moment. Yet, after reading all the 71 page report all the buzzes and alarms, that i did not want to see before, they became crystal clear of the game plan. With this i mean, imagening now a jury of 12 people without emotional attachment to xrp and ripple, what is the outcome here?

 

if i was able to read this as a ponzi scheme, what will the average joy understand/interpret? everyone should really make an introspection of what they are currently holding and future price action. 

Fair assessment. This would only accelerate Ripple taking a settlement which would give xrp non-security status and benefit all the holders. I hope for trial by jury then. Settlement is in the holder's interest, by far...it's not even close. The problem is the current settlement offered to Ripple is probably too raw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jn_r said:

I am not legal expert, (probably a dumb question I feel I should know) but why is a company not allowed to give discount to other companies? I understand that that is not allowed for securities, but if it is not a security, is it then allowed? (Honesty don't know.. If someone can give more info) 

To me, it's about ethics even if it's legal (assuming it's true, of course).  It means Ripple were selling at a discount for the sole purpose of guaranteeing a profit for their "partners" and the retail little guy holds the bag.  Ripple get cash to run their operations, their "partners" get a guaranteed profit, and the little guy pays for it all.  Remember, we were told these sales were all about creating liquidity for xRapid/ODL....selling to market-makers etc.

Again, let's see what Ripple can show in court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2ndtimearound said:

To me, it's about ethics even if it's legal (assuming it's true, of course).  It means Ripple were selling at a discount for the sole purpose of guaranteeing a profit for their "partners" and the retail little guy holds the bag.  Ripple get cash to run their operations, their "partners" get a guaranteed profit, and the little guy pays for it all.  Remember, we were told these sales were all about creating liquidity for xRapid/ODL....selling to market-makers etc.

Again, let's see what Ripple can show in court. 

Indeed. This case only makes sense if XRP is a security. That has been discussed so many times but I doubt the SEC will create a case that they have no chance of winning. That being said although what they did might be legal if XRP is a non-security it's really a dent in how Ripple is perceived and it's about ethics. Many have been defending Brad, ... in everything. This might bring a crack in that confidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SquaryBone said:

Indeed. This case only makes sense if XRP is a security. That has been discussed so many times but I doubt the SEC will create a case that they have no chance of winning. That being said although what they did might be legal if XRP is a non-security it's really a dent in how Ripple is perceived and it's about ethics. Many have been defending Brad, ... in everything. This might bring a crack in that confidence.

Yes. That is my thought also, they made a case for if XRP is a security. I would almost say, first things first .. On the ethics part, I am in doubt. They (Ripple employees) received payment in the form of XRP. This we already knew. Maybe we did not know how much they spent already? And maybe Ripple the company was transparent enough, but Brad and Chris maybe not? (And they should be transparant about it because of their position and -if- XRP is deemed a security). I do wonder how much info in the report is new, didn't we know most of it already?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • AgamemnonUA changed the title to Does the SEC lawsuit mean jail time?

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.