Jump to content

Through all this drama where does Jed come into play??


 Share

Recommended Posts

Question for anyone who may know or has thoughtful speculation.  With all this going on with the SEC, why is there not any mention of Jed??? It's almost like he has immunity or something, what's his take on all this haven't heard a peep??  It will be interesting to see if he cashes out still while this is going on!! I'm sure he's not bound geographically wonder if he will be doing so on foreign exchanges.

Edited by RikkiTikki_is_Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, thinlyspread said:

I asked about this on Twitter and a random dude actually put in a pretty good reply. No idea if it's legally correct but it sort of makes sense, I guess: 

 

That would make sense to me.  I don't know how much Jed sold when employed at Ripple, but majority of it was after he left.  SEC usually focuses lawsuits on the corporations and executives that are violating security lawsuits, rather than suing investors that are not current employees.

Another factor to consider is; I believe Ripple, Chris, and Brad approached Jed with their legal team at the start when Jed tried dumping XRP on the market.  So they legally coerced Jed into the structured escrow sale plan, that he is following today.  So this most likely puts some/all of the fault back on Ripple, Chis, and Brad.

Jed was indirectly mentioned in the lawsuit, but because of reasons like above was not focused on as a defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

57. On May 26, 2014, Larsen explained in an email to an individual formerly associated with Ripple that the international law firm that wrote the Legal Memos advised “that investors and employees could not receive XRP” because that “could risk SEC designation [as] a security.” Larsen also explained that the XRP he received upon Ripple’s founding was “comp[ensation] for . . . personally assuming th[e] risk” of being deemed the issuers of securities—namely, XRP.

This is from the SEC complaint. I do wonder who the individual formerly associated with Ripple is. It was almost certainly this person who provided the email dated May 26, 2014 to the SEC, where Chris Larsen stated in writing he personally assumed the risk of Ripple being deemed the issuer of securities.

Edited by deadestfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deadestfish said:

This is from the SEC complaint. I do wonder who the individual formerly associated with Ripple is. It was almost certainly this person who provided the email dated May 26, 2014 to the SEC, where Chris Larsen stated in writing he personally assumed the risk of Ripple being deemed the issuer of securities.

I believe they indirectly refer to Jed via "Co-Founder".  So any references of "Co-Founder" = Jed.  So I assume the above is referencing to someone else.

 

20. Co-Founder, age 45, is a California resident who co-founded Ripple and received nine billion XRP shortly after Ripple’s founding

Edited by wogojump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Babelly said:

Or he was an informant that cooperated with immunity as suggested by @Pablo

Nothing factual obviously, but I'm leaning that way.

 

Interesting. So there is a possibility Jed worked as an informant and then has immunity to continue to dump on retail? 

I wish I would have studied law 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the guy - or what he's doing - though I suspect he's trying to make his Erdős number zero, from some of the things I've read - I just hope he's using his powers for Good...  Of course, "trust but verify" comes to mind, as soon as I say that - and that's a very strange phrase to parse through a logical operator - or even an illogical one!

(I have a conjecture that super-intelligent socialist sympathizers are just sort of lonely, probably because they're super-intelligent in one arcane field which they believe has universal transform to all other fields - but I think they may be missing that the property of identity - well, "Identity" - capital I Identity - is not... what's the right word?  In an economic system the word might be "fungible" - or in the common parlance, maybe "interchangeable" - I'm sure there's a mathematical term for what I mean...need coffee!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cambridge said:

Interesting. So there is a possibility Jed worked as an informant and then has immunity to continue to dump on retail? 

I wish I would have studied law 

I'm guessing the snitches were Jed and MV. The SEC seems to know waaaaay too much about internal communications surrounding marketing strategy. Jed wants to damage Ripple for obvious reasons. MV probably has some Cuban relatives he needs to help out (JUST KIDDING).

Edited by PunishmentOfLuxury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

I'm guessing the snitches were Jed and MV. The SEC seems to know waaaaay too much about internal communications surrounding marketing strategy. Jed want to damage Ripple for obvious reasons. MV probably has some Cuban relatives he needs to help out (JUST KIDDING).

I doubt very much that Jed has any insider information that is useful any more - my bet is on MV being the source of most of the information in the SEC filing. He was in the room where it happened during the whole period from 2017 to mid this year - the fact that he left ripple this year is probably significant given the timeline and accusations. Knowledge of the trading and market making plans and discussions means that it would have to be one of a quite small (I suspect) group of people at ripple.

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.