melushell 18 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 The video is private Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 This one isn't Alluvial, KarmaCoverage, PunishmentOfLuxury and 5 others 5 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 If want to hear something new, start listening @6:19 ;-) BillyOckham, KarmaCoverage, DannyRipple and 1 other 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites
KarmaCoverage 4,312 Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 (edited) 10 minutes ago, melushell said: The video is private Whoops, I watched it over lunch so it wasn't private a few minutes ago. Basically the SEC stated their case that XRP is an investment contract. Then Ripple's atty said no because Reasons, then Laesen's lawyer said, "yeah what they said, plus Reasons to dismiss individual actions". Then Garlinghouse's atty said, "yeah what they said, plus more reasons, why this is ridicules". Defendants move to dismiss, SEC says they intend to make a motion to Strike. Ripple says they are open to more discovery, they want more internal documentation on how BTC & ETH were classified "not a security", and would like the motions submitted publicly. Judge says, "yeah publicly". Bye your honor Edited February 22 by KarmaCoverage DannyRipple, Seoulite, Zerpiet and 3 others 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 3 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said: Whoops, I watched it over lunch so it wasn't private a few minutes ago. Basically the SEC stated their case that XRP is an investment contract. Then Ripple's atty said no because Reasons, then Laesen's lawyer said, "yeah what they said, plus Reasons to dismiss individual actions". Then Garlinghouse's atty said, "yeah what they said, plus more reasons, why this is ridicules". Defendants move to dismiss, SEC says they intend to make a motion to Strike. Ripple says they are open to more discovery, and would like the motions submitted publicly. Judge says, "yeah publicly". Bye your honor Some NY law let you listen to the hearing, but it must not be recorded and distributed.... So better take care with posting such direct recordings Edited February 22 by kanaas KarmaCoverage and Julian_Williams 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
KarmaCoverage 4,312 Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 (edited) 3 minutes ago, kanaas said: Some NY law let you listen to the hearing, but it must not be recorded and distributed.... So better take care with posting such direct recordings I have no idea about all that. I didnt put it on youtube. Found this interesting re the SEC's motion to strike though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law) Quote A motion to strike is a request by one party in a United States trial requesting that the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party's pleading to the court. Motions to strike are most commonly sought by the defendant, as to a matter contained in the plaintiff's complaint; however, they may also be asserted by plaintiffs to a defendant's answer or other pleadings such as cross-complaints. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) states that if a complaint contains "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter," it may be stricken upon motion. Similarly, for example, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 provides, in part, that a motion to strike may be made to strike out any "irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading." A motion to strike may also be used to request the elimination of all or a portion of a trial witness's testimony. During a jury trial, if a motion to strike witness testimony is granted, the jury is typically instructed to disregard the stricken statements. Edited February 22 by KarmaCoverage Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Means they do not like some of Ripple's arguments... wonder what those may be .... Cannot think of anything else than the Q that came from the unnamed exchange... And that Q seems pretty relevant to me, so I cannot see a reason why the judge would put it aside... KarmaCoverage 1 Link to post Share on other sites
KarmaCoverage 4,312 Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 9 minutes ago, kanaas said: Means they do not like some of Ripple's arguments... wonder what those may be .... Cannot think of anything else than the Q that came from the unnamed exchange... And that Q seems pretty relevant to me, so I cannot see a reason why the judge would put it aside... I gathered that it was likely something the SEC had turned over in the FOIA request, and/or discovery. Guessing the SEC dosent want to turn over more info on how they determined BTC & ETH to be "not a security". But we have to wait for the public motions to know for sure, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said: I gathered that it was likely something the SEC had turned over in the FOIA request, and/or discovery. Guessing the SEC dosent want to turn over more info on how they determined BTC & ETH to be "not a security". But we have to wait for the public motions to know for sure, I guess. Maybe that's indeed the reason for their motion to strike, but how can they make it hard NOT having to tell the public how they came to a conclusion? Public companies have to put almost everything to the public and a regulator shouldn't have to tell what a decision is based on? Can't see a judge buying that one... jcdenton and DannyRipple 2 Link to post Share on other sites
KarmaCoverage 4,312 Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 2 minutes ago, kanaas said: Maybe that's indeed the reason for their motion to strike, but how can they make it hard NOT having to tell the public how they came to a conclusion? Public companies have to put almost everything to the public and a regulator shouldn't have to tell what a decision is based on? Can't see a judge buying that one... That was my first thought. What could be obtained by Ripple in discovery that does not already fall under FOIA? BTC & ETH dont make any public filings, so I guess only the SEC and BTC lobbyists would have communications around the decision. jcdenton and DannyRipple 2 Link to post Share on other sites
kanaas 3,973 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, KarmaCoverage said: That was my first thought. What could be obtained by Ripple in discovery that does not already fall under FOIA? BTC & ETH dont make any public filings, so I guess only the SEC and BTC lobbyists would have communications around the decision. Yeah, and if it's that, then I really wonder what (and even more why) they have to hide .... makes me curious. DannyRipple and KarmaCoverage 2 Link to post Share on other sites
RikkiTikki_is_Back 134 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) It's going to to be interesting to see what turn this takes once Gensler comes on board. It's almost like Clayton threw a hail mary on his way out the door and really didn't give a damn who caught it. Edited February 22 by RikkiTikki_is_Back KarmaCoverage 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Babelly 863 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 So which "major crypto exchange" asked for clarification in 2019? I guess we can narrow it down to exchanges that do business in the US since they're asking the SEC for guidance. Obvious choice is Coinbase, which listed XRP Feb 2019 to the public. Does Coinbase, or any major US crypto exchange for that matter, ask the SEC if they can list every single crypto they plan to offer? VanGogh 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JASCoder 2,012 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Babelly said: So which "major crypto exchange" asked for clarification in 2019? I guess we can narrow it down to exchanges that do business in the US since they're asking the SEC for guidance. Obvious choice is Coinbase, which listed XRP Feb 2019 to the public. Does Coinbase, or any major US crypto exchange for that matter, ask the SEC if they can list every single crypto they plan to offer? Great question, Babelly. Only CB isn't really much of a friend to RL, afaik. So they'd prolly not have shared the helpful info. Where as, Bitstamp IS. Binance.US certainly would have asked, given the hoops New York put them thru to get licensed. Oh, and isn't the head of Binance.US a former exec of RL ? #breadcrumbs Edited February 22 by JASCoder word fix VanGogh, Gepster and Babelly 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now