Jump to content

Any thoughts on the amended complaint the SEC filed today?


kanaas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pardon a legalese novice, but isn't the fact Jed's been off on his own, fervently estranged from Ripple Labs, Inc., and selling the chit out of his hoard of zerps to any takers at any price...

Kinna imply buyers of XRP tokens have ZERO expectations of having a contract with some company called Ripple ?

It would be ironic if Jed's multi-year long selling spree actually helps exonerate Ripple Labs, and their unencumbered claim on all the escrows to dispense with as they so wish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JASCoder said:

Pardon a legalese novice, but isn't the fact Jed's been off on his own, fervently estranged from Ripple Labs, Inc., and selling the chit out of his hoard of zerps to any takers at any price...

Kinna imply buyers of XRP tokens have ZERO expectations of having a contract with some company called Ripple ?

It would be ironic if Jed's multi-year long selling spree actually helps exonerate Ripple Labs, and their unencumbered claim on all the escrows to dispense with as they so wish...

The whole thing of course is fishy. Actually the whole crypto space is poisoned with greed and easy profit. While I believe Ripple has a strong position to win this case against the SEC, the fact that individuals were not ashamed to grab a few billions from the company assets makes one thinking about human nature. But hé, who am I to play the judge here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEC has been using the term ‘digital asset security’ since at least 2018. It isn’t new. https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/digital-asset-securites-issuuance-and-trading

The Howey test says nothing about shareholder rights needing to be granted for a contract, transaction or scheme to be considered a security under the 1933 Securities Act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, deadestfish said:

SEC has been using the term ‘digital asset security’ since at least 2018. It isn’t new. https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/digital-asset-securites-issuuance-and-trading

The Howey test says nothing about shareholder rights needing to be granted for a contract, transaction or scheme to be considered a security under the 1933 Securities Act. 

I understand, I was only joking about the absurdity of the situation. So let's say it was 50/50 buying and selling, now people all over the planet have 5 billion xrp worth of 'contract' with Ripple the entitles them to something. Wonder what Ripple is gonna give us...

As with the phrase, that is the thing that people are saying is noticeably different from the original complaint at first glance. That's why I brought it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, deadestfish said:

SEC has been using the term ‘digital asset security’ since at least 2018. It isn’t new. https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/digital-asset-securites-issuuance-and-trading

The Howey test says nothing about shareholder rights needing to be granted for a contract, transaction or scheme to be considered a security under the 1933 Securities Act. 

Didn't the Howey case decide that because the investors were just passively buying and relying entirely on Howey's management of the orchard to make a profit, their little plot of land was a security? Anyone who took delivery of the XRP and used them for transactions on the XRPL wouldn't be a security under the Howey test. That's not to say it's not a security under some other definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, brianwalden said:

Didn't the Howey case decide that because the investors were just passively buying and relying entirely on Howey's management of the orchard to make a profit, their little plot of land was a security? Anyone who took delivery of the XRP and used them for transactions on the XRPL wouldn't be a security under the Howey test. That's not to say it's not a security under some other definition.

Yeah, I think that’s about right. You can read the SEC’s case in such a way that it doesn’t disagree with the statement ‘a person taking delivery of XRP and using it for transactions on the XRPL is not purchasing a security’. I think it’s fair to say the SEC doesn’t care about that. They do care about the information disparity between retail XRP holders and senior employees of Ripple who can sell XRP freely but their job will mean they know when good or bad news affecting XRP price will be released.

Edited by deadestfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, xrphilosophy said:

FWIW, my public reply...

Quote

So all the exchanges killing XRP trading. Shocking the Global pricing for the World's holders of the token, causing BILLIONS of losses and disruptions... Was ALL for NOTHING ?!! Was this incompetence, or just plain malicious intent ?

I am really tempted to contact my Rep's office too, this is very very fishy from the get go.

I'm thinking the worst of the previous Administration and its "transactional" style of "governing."
Maybe I'm just overly cynical, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Stuart Alderoty

@s_alderoty: 

As many of you have seen, the SEC filed an amended complaint today. The only legal claim remains: did certain distributions of XRP constitute an investment contract? Disappointing the SEC needed to try to “fix” their complaint after waiting years to bring it in the first place...

Help me please:  Trying to get my head around what Stuart Alderoty is trying to say?  Previous to this amendment were their more legal claims, but only this one remains standing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the SEC is playing dirty.

It seems that Ripple’s initial response crushes their argument, so they amended their initial claim.

Ripple’s legal team responded that XRP is a currency not by just their definition of the digital asset, but as established by FinCen, I believe. 

So by bait and switch tactics, they can counter Ripple’s legal teams focused arguments. 

It's clear the SEC wants Ripple to be unsuccessful. They are not protecting the little guy, because if they were -- then why is Jed dumping millions of XRP daily and they don't do anything about it? Why not him? Why Ripple specifically? 

There's more here than meets the eye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

Not much has changed, mainly adding some accusations against BG and CL that means their motions to dismiss are less likely to succeed.

He says BG and CL must be under a lot of pressure - sleepless nights, tears, etc. I'm not worried though, they can wipe their tears with $50 bills.

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.