Jump to content

The purpose of SEC lawsuit (feat.tesla)


quan
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, baggy23 said:

It was a completely different case. It was just about a tweet, they accused him of market manipulation.

 

You are missing the point. even if both Tesla and ripple are innocent, they will find a reason to call you in and fix to fit their need.

Edited by quan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually thinking about Elon when I first saw Brad mention the SEC offered to settle the score with him and Chris individually. I'm sure they were asked to resign and pay personal fines, because I do think the US wants more internal oversight. Perhaps that is what must happen one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • quan changed the title to The purpose of SEC lawsuit (feat.tesla)

Wonder if Ripple have much choice in this issue considering they are planning to IPO in the near future.

Don't they have to get SEC's blessing in order to IPO?

They will most likely settle. 

Ripple & R3 had a fallout and eventually settled. Ofcourse SEC is a govt agency.. its probably a much different kind of game..   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, quan said:

"Musk and Tesla have agreed to settle the charges against them without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.  Among other relief, the settlements require that:

-Musk will step down as Tesla’s Chairman and be replaced by an independent Chairman.  Musk will be ineligible to be re-elected Chairman for three years;

-Tesla will appoint a total of two new independent directors to its board;

-Tesla will establish a new committee of independent directors and put in place additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk’s communications;

-Musk and Tesla will each pay a separate $20 million penalty.  The $40 million in penalties will be distributed to harmed investors under a court-approved process. "

Source: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

 

Anybody remember when Elon got sued by Sec in  Sep 2018 for a fraud? 

I assume these are all planned step for clarity in regulation. This legal suit is all about distributing the power of the leaders within the company, to enhance the governance of the company ripple.

This step is necessary in order to establish a firm trust with the government before Ripple can serve the US as a financial infrastructure provider.

You all know what happened to Tesla after. It went to Mars past the moon. ( Tesla is now infrastructure provider for space, internet, autonomous vehicles) 

Relax and just wait a SEC

20201225_121026.jpg

you seem to dismiss that was a single event. in the case of ripple+brad+larssen the SEC accuses over a peiord of 8 years. There is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, strikerjax said:

Wonder if Ripple have much choice in this issue considering they are planning to IPO in the near future.

Don't they have to get SEC's blessing in order to IPO?

They will most likely settle. 

Ripple & R3 had a fallout and eventually settled. Ofcourse SEC is a govt agency.. its probably a much different kind of game..   

the IPO thing is itneresting tho. it kinda explains the negative sentiment of past employees tbhat wanted Ripple to IPO very early.

now is understandable, a ripple IPO would have cashed past employees quite some serious money. an IPO from now on is just not delayed for several years or it may not happen at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jag216 said:

I was actually thinking about Elon when I first saw Brad mention the SEC offered to settle the score with him and Chris individually. I'm sure they were asked to resign and pay personal fines, because I do think the US wants more internal oversight. Perhaps that is what must happen one way or the other.

Not that it matters much but considering what Pablo wrote about Jed, could it be that Jed was also offered to settle the score and he gave in - so his name was removed from the document - and Brad and Chris did not give in so they are still named in the document. You could wonder if the other agents-x and cryptographers-x have had the same offer..

Edited by jn_r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know how government agencies work. I wouldn't be surprised if Clayton's neutral SEC was advised by other completely neutral "Bitcoin" advisors. The entire complaint text sounds like the mantra of the PoW Bitmain / Bitcoin maximalists against their competition. What do the Senate, FinCEN, DOJ and the CFTC actually say about the self-authorization of the SEC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jn_r said:

Not that it matters much but considering what Pablo wrote about Jed, could it be that Jed was also offered to settle the score and he gave in - so his name was removed from the document - and Brad and Chris did not give in so they are still named in the document. You could wonder if the other agents-x and cryptographers-x have had the same offer..

It could be that Jed cooperated with the SEC, it could be not. There’s no way for us to find that out for sure unless it is revealed during the proceedings. However, the document includes very specific numbers, conversations and email snippets from much later, a later timeline than when Jed had any formal affiliation with Ripple; that could indicate that current staff/ staff who left very recently could also be cooperating 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Jed left the company, effectively taking him out if the distribution scheme, plus a court determined his rate of sales. And David never had any XRP from the founding distribution. So he can't be part of the scheme "plot."

The funny thing is that I seriously doubt the SEC has an actual answer for how the distribution of XRP should have been done. But it creates a real issue for all premined digital assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jag216 said:

Well Jed left the company, effectively taking him out if the distribution scheme, plus a court determined his rate of sales. And David never had any XRP from the founding distribution. So he can't be part of the scheme "plot."

The funny thing is that I seriously doubt the SEC has an actual answer for how the distribution of XRP should have been done. But it creates a real issue for all premined digital assets.

Jed’s original plan as I remember, was to do an online giveaway to fairly distribute the tokens before they had value in the secondary market, a plan that the other founders and DS opposed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LilBender said:

Jed’s original plan as I remember, was to do an online giveaway to fairly distribute the tokens before they had value in the secondary market, a plan that the other founders and DS opposed 

I think you are right, but that doesn't work either. And they did faucets for awhile right? A friend of mine had gotten over 100k this way sub-cent and sold them all at a pittance.

Not to shill, but this was one of the reasons I bought into and support Metronome - their token economics made a tremendous amount of sense to me, and it still does, aside from the inflationary aspect - though even their justification makes sense as the scarcity of btc already is now becoming an issue.

That is the core issue to me now - ethical distribution. It's another chicken and egg problem when your business model depends on the token having some sort of market-driven value. Hiding the sales while telling everyone you are going long is not the answer either, as we are discovering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jag216 said:

I think you are right, but that doesn't work either. And they did faucets for awhile right? A friend of mine had gotten over 100k this way sub-cent and sold them all at a pittance.

Not to shill, but this was one of the reasons I bought into and support Metronome - their token economics made a tremendous amount of sense to me, and it still does, aside from the inflationary aspect - though even their justification makes sense as the scarcity of btc already is now becoming an issue.

That is the core issue to me now - ethical distribution. It's another chicken and egg problem when your business model depends on the token having some sort of market-driven value. Hiding the sales while telling everyone you are going long is not the answer either, as we are discovering.

This is the same reasoning that DS gave, that the people receiving the tokens with zero cost basis will sell it at a pittance

However, that scenario currently applies to the founders as well. Instead of millions of people selling a few thousands, we have a handful of individuals selling billions at zero cost basis 

Jed’s plan may not have been fool proof, but it would have been more democratic and the individuals with zero cost basis XRP would have exited the market years ago. IMO of course 

Link to comment
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
 Share



×
×
  • 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.