Jump to content

John Deaton files Motion to Intervene re SEC vs Ripple


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personally, I really like what Deaton is doing. He's fighting the good fight. I don't care about Brad's or Chris's holdings or if they have to pay a fine. They should have done a better job at distrib

The SEC said everything will be decided in New York. So, here we come.  

@Cambridge Your spot on about Deaton. I'm very happy. I feel indebted to him. Having read it in its entirety, I'm very pleased with his filing.  I feel represented.   

Reaching into thin air here, but I would assume it is attempt to limit the possibility of xrp being a security to only that held by founders or in escrow at Ripple and therefore freeing up all holders of xrp from any burden along with exchanges of the threat of xrp being deemed a security and allowing the market to continue. 

Edit: By no means was I implying that the SEC should seize or otherwise force Ripple to burn xrp. More of a point to where if a judge decides the SEC and the courts can only go after those coins being currently held by Ripple or founders. To be treated in the future as securities. I don't think that will happen, but it would limit harming the retail investor. 

Edited by peanut56
Edited for clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think it helps as it adds another dimension to the case for Torres to take into consideration. 

... 

I wasn't aware of this specific line in the FINCEN terms: 

“[a]ny sale or transmission of XRP by Ripple Labs or any of its subsidiaries shall be conducted only through an entity registered with FinCEN.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but if Ripple has to give up their escrow, they are basically screwed, even if the retail Holder's XRP is deemed a non security. They won't have any money to promote XRP adoption anymore and the coin will lose its value. The main driver of value for XRP is still Ripple and if they have nothing to drive it with, then it isn't worth much.

Edited by Archbob
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Archbob said:

Yeah, but if Ripple has to give up their escrow, they are basically screwed, even if the retail Holder's XRP is deemed a non security. They won't have any money to promote XRP adoption anymore and the coin will lose its value. The main driver of value for XRP is still Ripple and if they have nothing to drive it with, then it isn't worth much.

Ripple potentially surrendering their escrowed XRP would be a negative result of step 287 in this process. 

The step before us now (step 1) would be to distinguish exactly which XRP are in question...or more to the point, which ones are NOT in question. That's what Deaton's filing seeks to do. 

We can address a myriad of possible solutions to step 287 if Ripple did lose their XRP...or none at all ... or reasonable scenarios where they only lost a portion. (for example: at founding, Ripple was 'charged' to use 20B for future operations and distribute 60B to encourage network growth,)

But all lasting positive progress is incremental. That ordering-of-the-cart-and-horse thing is kinda important when working through a matter like this. 

There is no way in the world that when I posted my car on Craigslist for XRP that I was working with securities. Let's get a ruling for the XRP in the wild, get XRP re-listed for Americans again, and let Ripple fight it out with the SEC until they get tired of swinging....but somewhere out of the lime light, so Ripple's operations can resume .. and the SEC will have a chance to quietly save face from this horrific blunder they've made. 

 

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

Yeah, but if Ripple has to give up their escrow, they are basically screwed, even if the retail Holder's XRP is deemed a non security. They won't have any money to promote XRP adoption anymore and the coin will lose its value. The main driver of value for XRP is still Ripple and if they have nothing to drive it with, then it isn't worth much.

If someone takes the escrow from Ripple, do you really think they would do it to stop everything and let it fall?

Or do you think those who take it could distribute it some other, albeit similar, way and continue with the same plans only this time with greater control and power that comes with it?

And that's only one of the possible theories, just like the one you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Archbob said:

Yeah, but if Ripple has to give up their escrow, they are basically screwed, even if the retail Holder's XRP is deemed a non security. They won't have any money to promote XRP adoption anymore and the coin will lose its value. The main driver of value for XRP is still Ripple and if they have nothing to drive it with, then it isn't worth much.

banks are slavering to use ODL, it's not their money, that's what they are about!

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

I wonder if this will complicate or help things for the ripple legal team. 

It certainly complicates the prosecution and will be huge reputational headache for SEC.  The whole premise of the SEC case is that they act to protect the interests of investors, especially small investors, yet here they are being sued by thousands of small investors who have seen their life savings decimated by the action SEC has taken in their name.   It will be benefit to Ripple and us if Deaton's case focuses the media attention on what Clayton did, the manner of his behaviour.

It is extraordinary that SEC gave clarity to the carbon guzzling, money laundering BTC but refused to help, and went out of its way to wreck the regulation friendly, institution friendly XRP.  People will perhaps ask some questions about who Clayton really is.  To get their answer they only have to look at where he went to work after leaving SEC, and the new company he now keeps.   

Gensler better get his story together too.  He speaks with a forked tongue, telling us how he loves innovation but then backing Clayton's action as if they were providing creditable regulatory clarity for innovative tech in the US. 

Deaton has pulled rug from under SEC. 

Deaton will also force the courts to acknowledge that this case is not Ripple versus SEC, it is Ripple and the XRP community versus SEC.

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cambridge said:

Hindsight is 2020 but they could have given XRP to non profits with clauses so there's no dumping on the market. 

There was Computing for Good, I used to run all my office's computers on that. I think it was supposed to be sort of like "mining" XRP, pretty sure I got a few 1000 XRP from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said:

There was Computing for Good, I used to run all my office's computers on that. I think it was supposed to be sort of like "mining" XRP, pretty sure I got a few 1000 XRP from that.

Yes. Ripple didn't figure out a successful way to distribute XRP, but it wasn't for lack of trying. The problem was people would either just hold or sell - they couldn't figure out how to get XRP to people who would use it on the ledger. It was a chicken and egg problem, people didn't use the ledger because there weren't many useful services attached to it. But nobody built those services because there weren't enough people using the ledger to make it worthwhile.

I've been thinking lately. Ripple tried to come up with a ledger that would incorporate everything that money is in the abstract (which is probably why I thought it was so cool). But it was too abstract, people don't sit around and think about what money is ontologically, they just want to use their money. In hindsight they probably could have gotten more success if they picked just one practical use case, and focused on that. They were one of the first DEXs, if not the first, but they never got good gateways to make it work. If they had just focused on marketing themselves as the market leading DEX and supported everyone wanting to build a gateway or bridge between ledgers, they could be at the forfront of DeFi right now.

I think there's even less understanding of Ripple's concept of money being a combination of debt and trust than there was in 2015. I don't think most people on this forum could give a basic description of trustlines (it's not their fault, Ripple had to put them on the back burner). I don't know where I'm going with this, just that it's better to have a simple idea implemented well than an awesome but really complicated idea that you don't know how to get kick-started. If your simple idea is a success, you'll then have the liquidity and network effects to do the complicated, big-brain stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, panmores said:

Wow. What else to add. Read the whole thing.

 

His demeanor is not what I'm looking for in a lawyer, but I can't help but think of Lincoln's response to being asked to replace General Grant: "I cannot spare this man, he fights."

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.