Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, kanaas said:

TBH isn't this what XRP always did complain about? As a small investor you know nothing about deals, plans, whatever... At least you wanna know when and how your investment becomes diluted and/or under price pressure caused by large holders or the premier issuer. NDA's shouldn't be build around funding by XRP....

Agreed but it's a catch-22 for Ripple. If they disclose this information about XRP sales, it looks like they are treating XRP like a security. The other side of that catch-22 is that not disclosing may have been the very thing that got them into this mess in the first place!

Interestingly, while we know that Gary Gensler has discussed Ripple after being prompted, he actually uses the Ethereum Foundation as his "classic" case of centralisation of effort in the promotion of ETH. Which ties in with a little dig that Brad made at Joe Lubin at Davos in 2019 (tee'd up here: https://youtu.be/QzgTTsOOk04?t=1867)

Everything that I've seen from Gary suggests he will be looking for more disclosure and more protection for investors, not less. The Foundation and Joe disclose nothing about their treasury position, holdings or sales. We don't know who or how they pay for development. I wonder how long that game will go on before they are forced to share that information with the market?

My guess is that it won't be very long before we see an industry-wide reckoning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pablo said:

Agreed but it's a catch-22 for Ripple. If they disclose this information about XRP sales, it looks like they are treating XRP like a security. The other side of that catch-22 is that not disclosing may have been the very thing that got them into this mess in the first place!

Interestingly, while we know that Gary Gensler has discussed Ripple after being prompted, he actually uses the Ethereum Foundation as his "classic" case of centralisation of effort in the promotion of ETH. Which ties in with a little dig that Brad made at Joe Lubin at Davos in 2019 (tee'd up here: https://youtu.be/QzgTTsOOk04?t=1867)

Everything that I've seen from Gary suggests he will be looking for more disclosure and more protection for investors, not less. The Foundation and Joe disclose nothing about their treasury position, holdings or sales. We don't know who or how they pay for development. I wonder how long that game will go on before they are forced to share that information with the market?

My guess is that it won't be very long before we see an industry-wide reckoning...

You're the best mod in this forum, insightful comments always coming out from you, this is how a mod should behave, unlike some other mods only know how to get easily triggered and issue warning and bans after only detecting 1 unit of swear word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pablo said:

Agreed but it's a catch-22 for Ripple. If they disclose this information about XRP sales, it looks like they are treating XRP like a security. The other side of that catch-22 is that not disclosing may have been the very thing that got them into this mess in the first place!

Not disclosing makes not so much difference to be viewed as a security I guess. It's the nature of the asset and its usage to fund operations. That's what it makes looking like a security. The NDA's indeed made it a lot worser because THAT was against the "basics of public offering" with assets that are at the same time in reach and to be traded/invested by the broader public. 

I even think that they saw this coming somehow and have been anticipating with those fluff XRP markets reports to give the impression of a certain openness about XRP sales. We all know better now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

Great article on the topic from a real source Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/1346432

And an even better one from JDSupra: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/msb-or-not-msb-that-is-the-question-for-5641149/

When taken together, these make the opinions in the OP look kinda silly and uninformed.  

 

Outline of the Law360 article: https://outline.com/9gAu45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The financial markets feel so twitchy right now, as in it could all blow up at any moment. And yes I know people have been saying this for years and the Fed is trying to calm the waters and likely can for a little longer. But we all know there is something looming. Just the financial news cycle at the moment is making things seem less secure in America. "Money pouring into China," "Reddit club squeezes another hedge fund," "Bubble Bubble Bubble." And that doesn't even touch on all the other political unrest in America at the moment. 

Even if I was just learning about crypto for the first time, I could see that this case with Ripple is very important for the SEC to manage wisely. With confidence in the traditional markets sort of walking a tight rope (nevermind confidence in the government), they simply cannot start to strip away confidence in crypto markets. This would leave Americans at least momentarily completely unsure of where to turn, which leads to saving your money, which leads to major recessions.

And I don't mean the space should go unchecked or Ripple should go unchecked. CLEARLY there is some level of fraud spread throughout the market from top to bottom. But man at this particular moment in time on a macro level, this country cannot afford to miss the opportunity with this new technology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kanaas said:

You  see such a comment as misogynist? :wacko:

In what world isn't it misogynist? Telling people to "never trust women with money" is absolutely misogynist.

Here is the definition, just in case: "Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls."

Edited by Troote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Troote said:

Even if you mean this as a joke, posting misogynist comments is not funny.

Personally, and I might be wrong, I took it as implying they are indeed female... again, could be wrong and 2nd guessing myself now... 

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.