Jump to content

Q4 2020 XRP Markets Report


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, RobertHarpool said:

(Your wording is starting to muddy the water between Chris's founder-XRP, Brad's signing-bonus-XRP, and Ripple's stash. Chris didn't sell off any of the business's assets for his gain. That would be fraud.)

 

I am not sure what you are trying to point out and where you are getting your information from.  This looks to be getting off topic of the post.   I would recommend to read the SEC lawsuit, if you have not already done so: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2020/comp-pr2020-338.pdf.

Chris and the Sec both know, Chris was selling XRP for his personal gain. Chris enabling XRP to be sold, to fund his business, which will be used to profit his business in the future; is considered selling XRP for a personal gain.  Feel free to argue with the Sec, if you think they are lying on any of these items:

Quote

1. From at least 2013 through the present, Defendants sold over 14.6 billion units of a digital asset security called “XRP,” in return for cash or other consideration worth over $1.38 billion U.S. Dollars (“USD”), to fund Ripple’s operations and enrich Larsen and Garlinghouse. Defendants undertook this distribution without registering their offers and sales of XRP with the SEC as required by the federal securities laws, and no exemption from this requirement applied

6. Meanwhile, Larsen—Ripple’s initial chief executive officer (“CEO”) and current chairman of the Board—and Garlinghouse—Ripple’s current CEO—orchestrated these unlawful sales and personally profited by approximately $600 million from their unregistered sales of XRP.

9. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this Complaint, Defendants engaged in and are currently engaging in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)], and Larsen and Garlinghouse also aided and abetted Ripple’s violations of those provisions.

31. The definition of a “security” under the Securities Act includes a wide range of investment vehicles, including “investment contracts.” Investment contracts are instruments Case 1:20-cv-10832 Document 4 Filed 12/22/20 Page 6 of 71 7 through which a person invests money in a common enterprise and reasonably expects profits or returns derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. Courts have found that novel or unique investment vehicles constitute investment contracts, including interests in orange groves, animal breeding programs, railroads, mobile phones, and enterprises that exist only on the Internet. As the United States Supreme Court noted in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., Congress defined “security” broadly to embody a “flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.” 328 U.S. 293, 299 (1946).

153. The following sales of XRP took place with Larsen working in coordination with Ripple to develop and maintain a liquid market for XRP through which Defendants could monetize their holdings. Email between Larsen and the Market Maker, from at least 2017 through at least 2019, show that, like Ripple and Garlinghouse, Larsen also attempted to strike a delicate balance between maximizing profits from his XRP sales while not depressing the price of XRP

159. After Garlinghouse joined Ripple in 2015, Garlinghouse was awarded XRP from Ripple, aligning his financial incentives with Ripple’s. Garlinghouse later resold significant quantities of XRP to amass profits well over one hundred million dollars.

329. Ripple made certain Institutional Sales of XRP at discounted priced, leading purchasers to reasonably expect to profit on their resale of XRP into the public markets

330. Moreover, the value of Ripple’s current holdings of XRP (approximately $28 billion as of last week) and of XRP’s total market capitalization of approximately $58 billion—given that, as Garlinghouse has publicly stated, Ripple “would not be profitable or cash flow positive” without selling XRP—demonstrates that XRP investors are speculating that Ripple will achieve its stated goals with respect to XRP. In other words, market participants, when they buy XRP, are speculating that Ripple’s economic incentives and its promises with respect to XRP will lead it to successfully solve the “trillion-dollar problem” that will increase demand for XRP.

386. Garlinghouse understands that Ripple is not profitable and cannot operate without continued sales of XRP, as he has publicly stated.

 

Page 14 starts to go into specific details on how Chris and Ripple facilitated selling XRP.

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sales (net of purchases) is moving in the wrong direction. Majority of investors and community want to see this go down, not up.  I also counted Sec being mentioned 13 times in the article, while 0 me

Its all sour grapes, the tune would be different had XRP & their holdings reached ATH or better, after the sec announcement if the claim had been thrown out as soon as Clayton left. Brad &amp

I dunno. Assuming the SEC's numbers are correct, Chris sold about 15-20% of his XRP holdings. So what? I have too. So has most anyone who has seen an increase in value to their investment in abou

they done what they did, they have to answer for that one way or another.

Harping on about it in here is doing no good at all  and doing the value of your equity/xrp no good either. unless that is your intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 9:24 AM, wogojump said:

I am not sure what you are trying to point out and where you are getting your information from.  This looks to be getting off topic of the post.   I would recommend to read the SEC lawsuit, if you have not already done so: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2020/comp-pr2020-338.pdf.

Chris and the Sec both know, Chris was selling XRP for his personal gain. Chris enabling XRP to be sold, to fund his business, which will be used to profit his business in the future; is considered selling XRP for a personal gain. 

I am trying to point out that you are not distinguishing between the different defendants in the SEC's complaint, nor the specific allegations levied against each of them. 

I am getting my information from 9 years of experiential and academic knowledge about Ripple and the protocol. 

Your op clearly blamed Chris/Brad 'dumping' XRP for the SEC's action. I emphatically disagree with this characterization.  

I thoroughly read the SEC complaint the day it was published. 

Unfortunately, your choice of punctuation and syntax in your second paragraph make it too difficult for me to specifically address whatever else it is you are trying to say. 

Everyone I know who has read the complaint comes to the same conclusion: The SEC has no evidence of any fraudulent activity on behalf of Chris, Brad or Ripple. 

If you have evidence that something fraudulent (or criminal) happened, I strongly encourage you to report it to the SEC. 

Otherwise: Chris owned some crypto. Network use increased its value. He sold some. That is not rationale for an SEC overreach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

If you have evidence that something fraudulent (or criminal) happened, I strongly encourage you to report it to the SEC. 

There is no point in me submitting a report to the SEC, the SEC already completed a full audit of Ripple and filed a lawsuit. I never claimed Ripple or their employees committed a crime.

 

3 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

Otherwise: Chris owned some crypto. Network use increased its value. He sold some. That is not rationale for an SEC overreach. 

This isn't your choice to decide if this is rational and a SEC overreach.  This is for the SEC and the US court system to decide. Ripple has tried to get the case thrown out for SEC overreaching, but has not succeeded as of today. The US legal system has agreed so far this case is rational and should proceed forward.   They are doing a pre-trial later this month.  Maybe a judge later this month will say this is a SEC overreach, but most likely not happen.  The case will most likely end with a settlement agreement. Recommend to watch this video for expectations:

 

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites

Drama, drama, drama. I don‘t understand the artifical confusion in the US.

XRP is a fully „functional movable object“ (exchange object or virtual currency) since late 2012 as part of a distributed software system. The ledger software, its transfer capabilities of XRP, its wallet and fee system (spam protection) was fully operating since its launch back in 2012/13 (see GitHub for source code). 

It has never been an investment contract (security), unlike ETHs ICO.

XRP started with its ledger, just like Bitcoin.

This also the stance of european clerks, as well as the rest of the world.

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.