Jump to content

Two leading lawyers discuss SEC case and rip Ripples's arguments to shreds

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, macropolo said:

The two things I found strange about this interview was the off-hand dismissal of Chinese mining pool centralization, with Laura Shin dismissing it 

yeah it was cringy to hear her creepy laugh about the matter :vampire:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, XRPage said:

Brad, is that you? Either it is you or someone who gets paid by him. Wtf is wrong with you people??? 

I'm not sure why you think highlighting that issue is me shilling for Brad.  If you choose to bury your head in the sand on the issues with proof of work blockchains, that's you're choice, but don't call me a shill.  I'll leave you with this quote from another "notorious" XRP shill, Vitalik Buterin:



Do blockchains as they are today manage to protect against common mode failure? Not necessarily. Consider the following scenarios:

All nodes in a blockchain run the same client software, and this client software turns out to have a bug.

All nodes in a blockchain run the same client software, and the development team of this software turns out to be socially corrupted.

The research team that is proposing protocol upgrades turns out to be socially corrupted.

In a proof of work blockchain, 70% of miners are in the same country, and the government of this country decides to seize all mining farms for national security purposes.

The majority of mining hardware is built by the same company, and this company gets bribed or coerced into implementing a backdoor that allows this hardware to be shut down at will.

In a proof of stake blockchain, 70% of the coins at stake are held at one exchange.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, XRPage said:

Thank you @karlosfor the warning point. Are there warning points for excesive and dangerous shilling too? That would have saved many from heavy bags... Censhorship in an open blockchain forum is not what we need

If you are unable to see the difference in how (not what) you post vs 'the shillers' then the warning point is fair but probably pointless.

Aside from that. Youtube is full with pro/anti Ripple and pro/anti BTC and these three people are clearly less fond of Ripple and more into BTC. Just follow their Twitter history to see what they prefer. That does not take away that some points they make sound rational. Rationality has nothing to do with this however.

In the end a judge has to make a decision based on what evidence which very well paid lawyer gives to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, macropolo said:

I'm not sure why you think highlighting that issue is me shilling for Brad.

This is the same argument, stupid from by point of view, that Brad always brings up. Centralization in one country (if that is even true) is infinitely better than centralization in one company. Ripple has never been able to (or has never wanted to) address this issue after so many years. Ey, but Brad is long on btc (as well as xrp...) 

Edited by XRPage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XRP's primary design function has always been to prevent denial of service attacks and spamming of the network by requiring a small amount attached to every transaction ... the cost of which exponentially increases as the number of transactions do. That fee is destroyed. 

In no country is something with that kind of functionality or destiny a security. It's a postage stamp that gets canceled after use. Not part ownership of the Post Office. 

XRP's secondary design function has always been as a bridge currency between infrequently traded currency/value pairs like from the fiat currency Guatemalan Quetzals to Nepalese Rupee ... or between branded corporate currencies like FF miles, reward points, Disney Dollars, etc ... or between other digitally titled value like commodities and such. To this end, XRP is a medium of exchange between mediums of exchange. A super currency. 

A currency is not a security. 





Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:


Stephen Palley, partner at Anderson Kill. and Gabriel Shapiro, partner at BSV Law, discuss the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple and two executives, Chris Larsen and Bard Garlinghouse. In this episode, they explain:

what was so “egregious” that the SEC went after two executives, Chris Larsen and Brad Garlinghouse, were charged 

why their sales showed an information asymmetry, and why that matters

why the complaint comes close to being a fraud case, but why the SEC didn’t charge them with fraud

why the idea that XRP is a currency and therefore cannot be a security will likely not fly

why it’s unlikely the case will go to the Supreme Court

the SEC’s case for why XRP is a security, and Ripple’s role in it

how even on a technical level, the XRP network is centralized

how strong the SEC’s case is against Larsen and Garlinghouse

Stephen’s and Gabriel’s predictions on how the lawsuit will play out

how this will likely impact XRP investors

whether or not Ripple could become an SEC-reporting company and XRP a security

what happened with Ripple’s lead investor in its most recent fundraising round

whether or not the SEC might go after exchanges or other players who made money off XRP or collaborated with Ripple around XRP trading

what this means for Coinbase, in particular, because it’s going public later this year

what Ripple’s defense, in its summarized Wells submission, was 

how this case compares to some of the other big SEC/crypto securities cases, Kik/Kin and Telegram

whether there might ever be a digital token that is determined to be a security for specific transactions but not others

what the wider implications of the case are for the rest of the crypto industry 

I've been trawling through alternative views to get a balance. The one thing that I am sure of is that the outcome is not certain, hence I am not investing any further in to XRP for now and have diluted my holdings. The one thing that will come out of this, rightly or wrongly, is that both Larsen and Garlinghouse will come out of this tarnished and I'm not sure that they will be able to hang on to their positions.  My personal bet is that either by settlement (preferably because less time lost) or by trial, the XRP currently in circulation will be deemed currency, the escrow will be burned/locked or only made available to institutions and not for retail sale, and Ripple, plus the 2 defendants will be heavily fined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

That's what the MP said in the parliamentary committee in May 2018

"Stewart Hosie: We will get back to some of that in a moment, but the point that was made earlier, Mr Zagone, is that if people buy XRP—a financial asset—from Ripple Labs, it does not entitle them to an ownership stake, there is no right to be converted back into conventional currencies and it does not pay any return. It also seemingly has no purpose. Is that simply to avoid XRP looking like a security or an equity, and to avoid the necessary regulation?"



yet, didn't UK ruled XRP as a non security? :)

Edited by namini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big pockets that are buying Jed's daily 9:00 GMT mega drops aren't too worried, so neither am I.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I really like Palley and think he makes valid points. I think it comes down to CEO behaviour and registration of Ripple's funds and general "naughtiness"! With the legal firepower RIpple have I think it'll settle and Ripple will (IMO, rightly) accept a big slap on the wrist. Then it's game on.

An aside, and I admit I'm biased here but: I do think the CEO sales were disgusting and used informational advantage. I think there should be some pennance here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, princesultan said:

im all for listening to both sides and being critical of ripple, but after listening to 8 min of this junk podcast, I could tell that there is literally nothing of interest in it for me to learn about. 

Believe me, I had a big meal before braving this podcast but I know Gabriel personally and while he trolls the living crap out of Ripple and the XRP Army (whoever that is), he actually takes a measured approach to the legal issues at hand. I don't agree at all with his assessment of the XRPL but it's OK to disagree and he's entitled to his opinion. 

Gabe does make some valid points towards the 2nd half of the video, particularly around settlement options. This includes what a future looks like for Ripple and how they might be able to navigate a future involving their ongoing sales of XRP. There are scenarios where circulating XRP isn't deemed as a security but is viewed as a security when sold by Ripple or its execs. That would give the SEC what it wants which is greater transparency and a better price discovery mechanism for all market participants. 

And who doesn't want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lucky said:

The big pockets that are buying Jed's daily 9:00 GMT mega drops aren't too worried, so neither am I.


Jed knows more than you and I and he is selling. He, "contrary to Brad", is short on xrp.


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

  • 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.