Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Laura Shin comes across as very anti XRP, almost laughing about the situation XRP holders find themselves in, and the lawyers do too.  They seem to ignore that XRP does have a use case and with FLR th

2 “leading lawyers” discuss SEC case against ripple? one of them looked like a bum with a crumpled shirt. And after googling, he’s one of 3 partners in a 4 person firm. ya... I’m not listeni

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 ha

On 26/01/2021 at 12:23 PM, Pablo said:

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?

But what about gifting XRP to parties that than sell on market? Like Coil

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

But what about gifting XRP to parties that than sell on market? Like Coil

Based on the SEC complaint, that could be problematic. Now, Ripple could ignore the SEC claim and continue business as usual while waiting for the court case to resolve. Some companies have done just that and seemed to get away with it. But if the court finds against Ripple, they wouldn't be able to even give XRP away without registering the transfer. 

It's not clear which way Ripple is heading - do they continue as before, or pull back and hold off any further XRP transactions until the matter is resolved? That's why I and others were scratching their heads as to how Ripple is still allowed to release XRP to Jed to sell on Bitstamp. One clue I found that might explain why was by going back to the old Ripple forum and finding this comment by Monica Long at the time Ripple reached settlement with Jed - I have highlighted the critical words:

Quote

All of Jed and his children's remaining XRP, approximately 5.3 billion XRP, will be placed in a custody account at Ripple. While Jed retains full title and ownership of his remaining XRP, Ripple will control the release of his XRP in a manner consistent with the settlement agreement. Specifically, Jed will be allowed to sell his remaining XRP in the following manner:

...

(https://web.archive.org/web/20150518083034/https://forum.ripple.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7641&f=1&t=7641)

Those highlighted words explain a lot. Ripple isn't transferring title to Jed's XRP over time. They don't own those XRP - Jed owns them outright so they're not "assisting" or "facilitating" any breach of the Securities Act. Ripple is merely holding them on trust and have little ability to stop Jed's sales unless a court ordered them to breach the settlement terms/trust and cancel any further release (or demand Jed return them if the release is programmatic). So Jed's sales can continue unabated. As can, presumably, Arthur Britto's (assuming he was ever doing so).

It doesn't look like the SEC is terribly concerned about Jed so his status appears unlikely to change at this stage. Let's see if Gary Gensler takes a tougher stance on Jed (and by corollary, Arthur Britto).

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

So Jed's sales can continue unabated. As can, presumably, Arthur Britto's (assuming he was ever doing so).

It doesn't look like the SEC is terribly concerned about Jed so his status appears unlikely to change at this stage.

off topic - but today, Jed's sales didn't go ahead as usual. The 17,169,607.54 xrp went into his sales account, but no sell orders were placed (at least, not yet) - I wish I knew what was going on behind the scenes...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jbjnr said:

off topic - but today, Jed's sales didn't go ahead as usual. The 17,169,607.54 xrp went into his sales account, but no sell orders were placed (at least, not yet) - I wish I knew what was going on behind the scenes...

The 9 'o clock jed candle was present today..

afsafsfsdffdsa.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

It seems rather inconsistent of SEC to stop the sales of one founder, but not the others?  Perhaps they too did not see the loophole and have now closed it. 

It seems his sales went ahead whilst I was sleeping. They were 14ish hours behind schedule, but happened after all. I can see two possibilities

1) The machine running the sales script was down/offline for a bit and once restarted went ahead with the sales

2) The selling scripts have been adjusted for some reason unbeknownst to us

Either way, it seems clear the SEC are not after Jed and the fact that his sales are done in a 'published' manner must be the deciding factor (or at least a contributing one).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jbjnr said:

Either way, it seems clear the SEC are not after Jed and the fact that his sales are done in a 'published' manner must be the deciding factor (or at least a contributing one).

This is the key point. It is time driven programmed sales and, moreover, Jed cannot sell based on inside information.

Now there is no proof that BG and CL sold their tokens leveraging on inside information, but the suspect is always there unless it is done in a transparent way or, even better, time triggered as part of their distribution strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jbjnr said:

1) The machine running the sales script was down/offline for a bit and once restarted went ahead with the sales

2) The selling scripts have been adjusted for some reason unbeknownst to us

This morning, the sales went back to normal schedule, so I guess it was some small issue that stopped them temporarily. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 9:31 PM, jbjnr said:

Just a coincidence that BTC/XRP pumped and dumped at around that time. His wallet did not trade today. Look on the ledger and you will see his funds remain unsold.

I presented you clear evidence. What you do with it is your decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gepster said:

I presented you clear evidence. What you do with it is your decision.

You presented evidence of trading activity, but it wasn't Jed's. If you look at his wallets on the ledger and plot trading on the ledger, you'll see quite clearly that his trades were disturbed out of the normal pattern. There is a missing set of sales, followed by a double set yesterday as his trading bot was inactive for most of the day.

image.thumb.png.b154bc185eac1e8ed6a195e63a343d67.png

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.