Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, xrp-nuke said:

Was there any successfull class actions against sec before in tech industry?

I don’t know, but even if there wasn’t I would still pursue it. Honestly I’m surprised no attorneys are looking into this. 
 

Let’s just say hypothetically , we were all invested in gold. And the sec determined some company who had 60% of the gold was violating the securities act. The sec then sued them impacting the price of gold substantially. 
 

you may see this as silly because “we all know gold isn’t a security “ but that’s how I view xrp . To me the sec grossly overstepped their jurisdiction into a new asset class which negatively impacted my portfolio. 
 

im not devastated , I’m actually glad I have another opportunity to buy more below .30

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I need to clarify this after some more thinking about the topic and having listened to a number of different views on the issue. Just to go back to what Hellerstein said in the Kik judgement: T

https://ripple.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ripple-Wells-Submission-Summary.pdf Summary of Ripple’s Wells Submission I. Introduction A. The SEC’s theory, that XRP is an investment c

Ripple needs to show that XRP is not a security by demonstrating that the Howey test does not apply to XRP. They will probably also try any other legal manoeuvre available to chip away at the evidence

1 minute ago, dontsellmeadog said:

The entertainment. 

Short for not having a life especially if you find XRPChat entertaining.  I know the pandemic has been rough but man If I took time out to troll all things I don't like or think little of on a regular basis I would be questioning my own sanity "I don't have the energy or the time, but to each it's own."

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, xrp-nuke said:

Time for CL to donate to Ripple!

The more time passes the more looks like SEC just made impulsive move without strategy. The one can say they spent years of making case, but where is their strategy and how are they want protect investors and what they really want from Ripple?

If only it were that simple.

My impression is that this is all about getting a precedent in US law that the way Ripple sold XRP constituted an "investment contract" that needed to be regulated under security law.   This makes every crypto token created as an ICO, which excuses ETH and BTC apparently, a security.  That clarifies everything, it also seems to destroy innovation in the US and makes the US a no-go area for new blockchain projects. 

I am trying to work out the purpose behind this strategy?  What is their end game?

The other enigma is why they are messing about with security law at all.  It seems to me to be totally unsuited for the regulation of crypto tokens.  It like trying to make BTC as fast as XRP, it is a fools game.  Much better to work out how you want to regulate crypto and then build law to achieve your aims.  Create a new asset class.

It seems we are fighting with a team of clever dinosaurs that want to return the world to an era when America was the only super power and everything danced under the hegemony of dollar and old style banking practices and corruption.  This is going nowhere.

Please @Pablo give me some guidance about what I am missing in all this?

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

If only it were that simple.

My impression is that this is all about getting a precedent in US law that the way Ripple sold XRP constituted an "investment contract" that needed to be regulated under security law.   This makes every crypto token created as an ICO, which excuses ETH and BTC apparently, a security.  That clarifies everything, it also seems to destroy innovation in the US and makes the US a no-go area for new blockchain projects. 

I am trying to work out the purpose behind this strategy?  What is their end game?

The other enigma is why they are messing about with security law at all.  It seems to me to be totally unsuited for the regulation of crypto tokens.  It like trying to make BTC as fast as XRP, it is a fools game.  Much better to work out how you want to regulate crypto and then build law to achieve your aims.  Create a new asset class.

It seems we are fighting with a team of clever dinosaurs that want to return the world to an era when America was the only super power and everything danced under the hegemony of dollar and old style banking practices and corruption.  This is going nowhere.

Please @Pablo give me some guidance about what I am missing in all this?

I think you hit the nail on the head. There's a banking system and a handful of banks that own the railways for international money transfer - SWIFT.

It seems, at least to me, that Ripple wanted to disperse XRP into the market gradually all the while creating business relationships that would build liquidity. Once there is a robust framework and networks with enough liquidity, then smaller banks would join in and have an option to step away from the legacy banking system. It could not be done now, which to me makes this point by the SEC mute. You can't really blame Ripple for not being able to offer this right away, because it's not possible. 

So my interpretation remains that in order to stifle Ripple’s progress, lobbyists for the major banks are pressuring regulators by telling them that this "crypto magic token" is going to destabilize global markets if there is "a run on XRP". So to protect the financial system, they need to regulate it as a security to limit what Ripple can do and thus keep control of the legacy system set in place by these big banks, at least until they can catch up with the technology. 

I could be completely off base, but that's what I've read online somewhere. What do I know. 

Edited by Cambridge
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cambridge said:

I think you hit the nail on the head. There's a banking system and a handful of banks that own the railways for international money transfer - SWIFT.

It seems, at least to me, that Ripple wanted to disperse XRP into the market gradually all the while creating business relationships that would build liquidity. Once there is a robust framework and networks with enough liquidity, then smaller banks would join in and have an option to step away from the legacy banking system. It could not be done now, which to me makes this point by the SEC mute. You can't really blame Ripple for not being able to offer this right away, because it's not possible. 

So my interpretation remains that in order to stifle Ripple’s progress, lobbyists for the major banks are pressuring regulators by telling them that this "crypto magic token" is going to destabilize global markets if there is "a run on XRP". So to protect the financial system, they need to regulate it as a security to limit what Ripple can do and thus keep control of the legacy system set in place by these big banks, at least until they can catch up with the technology. 

I could be completely off base, but that's what I've read online somewhere. What do I know. 

k

Regular

New Member

 22

24 posts

Posted Thursday at 10:33 AM (edited)

I believe and I could be wrong that XRP itself will not be found as a security, but it is possible the actions of Ripple will be penalized in using it in that manner(Which I hope not, but who knows). I believe that if this is such Ripple will incur a hefty fine and be forced to turn over control over the large amount of XRP that they hold individually and  corporately and at the end of the day a vast majority will be controlled by a government entity or  a non profit entity (HI SWIFT "Had a feeling you had the nuclear option still in the bag, and with friends in Washington to boot!") but that is neither here nor there. This was going to happen no matter what party led the administration once they got a clear and concise view that this thing was real and the implications it has. Their not worried about Bitcoin and Ethereum not to say those DA's aren't good but at least now they are not displaying the world transforming attributes that XRP and the XRP ledger are showing (NOW!!) I mean look at the timing and the actions.  "The building of the Non Profit, BG saying Ripple may leave the US due to the lack of regulatory clarity.  He comes out a day or two before the actual SEC announcement and says "We may be sued by the SEC!!!)Who the hell does that?? Like he is trying to warn us retail investors to either get out or take your XRP and run! He knew they were going to be sued and their business partners knew it also way in advance.  Here is what's happening at least I think.  "The Shakedown!!"  XRP use case is no longer conceptual it's realized and with that realization comes the fact that not only does ripple hold a lot but a lot of retail investors hold a lot most for speculative nature and to capitalize on the profits of that behavior just like BTC, because lets be honest BTC's use case is an imaginary place holder because it's to costly and slow for transactions so it's been hyped as a placeholder for value off pure speculation {It's sort of like the matrix, when your plugged in you see this but when you unplug you see what it really is .) I'm not knocking BTC but I am saying any coin from A to Z including Dogecoin could do what we have deemed BTC able to do. the only reason it's at the top is because it was the first out the gate but in hindsight so was the Ford Model T.  XRP wasn't meant for you and me!!  I wrote over a year ago on this forum in my first reincarnation on here  and I quote "At some point I fully expect XRP will be taken off public facing exchanges and only dealt between organization's, governments, banks and OEM's as a settlement asset, but first they must reign in the bulk of what is out there with the retail investors!"  I did not word it exactly this way but I echoed the same idea.   How this will be done is by price manipulation a severe swing down will force most to sell then once that has happened a severe swing up to get the other half to sell.  You can't lead with your emotions but you also have to do what you need to do is what I will leave you with!  Again this is just my thought's and definitely speculation at this point based on various data points throughout the over 4 years I have been following XRP. This movement although hidden as a reprimand on Ripple is nothing more than a control grab by the Government with influential backers behind the scene namely the central banks working with SWIFT 

Edited Thursday at 10:40 AM by RikkiTikki_is_Back

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pablo  Based on your experience, do you have any thoughts on how Ripple will try to move forward to get out of this mess? 

Obviously, Ripple will try to distinguish its circumstances from that Kik's.  Any thoughts on what arguments Ripple may make to distinguish the facts of this case from what Kik did, and how strong are those possible arguments?  And what other possible defenses could Ripple raise (that were not raised in Kik)?  Seems that at least one former SEC Chair and a former CFTC Chair looked at Ripple and xrp, and determined that xrp is not a security.  

If you think this court will follow the Kik decision and its analysis, and Ripple's circumstances are not distinguishable enough, then Ripple could possibly try to have the court apply a new standard - the Ripple standard - which will would apply in cases involving cryptocurrencies (which were obviously not contemplated when the Securities Act was enacted in the 1930s or when the Howey decision was rendered in the 1940s).  Seems like a longshot to me coupled with a very long, drawn out process that would require appeals.  Very costly for Ripple to be on the sidelines for such a long period with no ability to sell xrp to fund operations.  What do you think?  However, the new SEC Chair who will take over in June 2021 may be more amenable to a different standard - I think that is what Ripple is banking on (in addition to its defenses).

Lobby for a bill in Congress establishing new standards for cryptocurrencies?

Settle, but what, based on your experience, would a settlement entail besides a fine?  How would future sales by Ripple be treated?  I am sure Ripple is dying (maybe not the right word!) to get this resolved as soon as possible. 

Thanks for any comments and insights!, and please send me the legal bill for your time (and also many thanks for taking the time to be a moderator on this site).  :drinks: 

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

My understanding is that the sale of ETH was considered an investment contract at the time or origin, but that is no longer the case. What would have to happen for Ripple to cross that chasm? Giving up control of XRPL and the majority of their stack of XRP might be two components of that transition. 

This makes sense to me.  I did not know that ETH crossed the same bridge, then this looks like the big stick

The ideal outcome is as you say:

  • Ripple and owners pass across control of the excess reserve stock to a third party
  • XRPL become governed by an independent body made up of the developers and users and funded by the third party body that now controls the stock
  • Ripple are one of the companies that work with the XRPL
  • Brad and Chris are fined for abusing the system and then left alone

The other option is Armageddon because as @Pablo has pointed out SEC really do have a pistol aimed at Ripple's head.

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RikkiTikki_is_Back said:

If Ripple goes down I'm sure the US Government will take control of their XRP, but I don't see that happening.  At the most I see hefty fines and restructuring.  When the smoke clears though I don't think BG will be at the helm.  Don't you find it strange through all this Jed is not named in anything???? I think BG 's exit will be one of the terms ripple will have to come to grips with if they plan to continue operations in good faith while under the SEC's watchful eye.

Did Jed tell people to "shill" XRP? Did he shill XRP? Did he sell 600 million $ worth of XRP in secrecy? ... Don't get too caught up in the fairy tales of the utubers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2020 at 5:28 PM, Julian_Williams said:

2. Ripple is not a common enterprise of XRP purchasers.

What about Xpring? Didn't Ripple give XRP to groups and individuals to build on the XRPL? It seems that it could be argued the XRPL is a common enterprise. Especially, if most of that XRP ended up in retail hands anyway.

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

As for settlement terms, you can find the settlement outline at the end of the Complaint. In summary, it would likely include: (a) limiting the sales of already distributed XRP to be in accordance with the Securities Act and only on registered exchanges, (b) a full refund of profits from the sale of XRP all the way back to foundation, (c) Ripple ending all future sales of XRP and any other digital asset Ripple owns or creates and (d) the payment of fines. That's what prior settlements with the SEC look like as well.

Excellent summary! I think that the refusal of the settlement proposal is exactly because of these points. These terms as described would seriously put Ripple's survival at risk. One future way out would be an IPO but I doubt if anyone would invest in a company that has a lack of revenues. Any scenario would mean a severe resizing of Ripple as a company.

What I don't understand is the confidence with which Ripple intends to face the case. Dropping the case is very improbabile as well explained by Jack Cherwinsky on Twitter. A new attempt to come to a settlement is an option to steer away from long lasting trials but that would probably imply to for Ripple to admit their position.

In strict legal terms I agree with @Finesse that considering XRP a security is stretching the law beyond reasonable terms and for this reason not applicable. The problem in my simplistic (I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with US laws) view is that Ripple made it "look like a security" and are charged for this reason.

Edited by Frisia
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...

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.