Jump to content

SEC hearing today, some interesting early feedback from those on the call!


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said:

none of those snap shots are showing for me. It would be random luck if a random shot found that exact forum post/comment. Although the Official forum was not as active as XRPtalk was, so I sort of didnt comment much on the  Official one.

I can confirm this about the two forums. I don't specifically remember your old name. But I was the same way. I would comment much more on XRPTalk than the official forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short summary: The SEC enforcement lawyers can no longer get through with their no-utility narrative and now generally attack the consensus protocol and premined token. What this has to do with Howey seems to only exist in the dreams of the SEC enforcement laywers.

Hint: Ether was also largely premined and "given away" by an entity, but nobody in the SEC seems to care. Especially not the unsuspecting William Hinman, or backers like Simpson Thatcher, Vitalik "The Brain" Buterin, the Ethereum Alliance and associated mining companies such as Canaan Inc.

Why also? Ether not only donates money for hard-working (but underpaid) "enforcement personnel", but also offers potential business entities to sue as an ERC20 ICO platform. SEC & ETH - A perfect match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RobertHarpool said:

FAVORITE Quote:

“presumably everyone in the world selling XRP is guilty of a section 5 violation”

This is 90% of why I - and most other people - listened to the call or pay attention to these proceedings, at all.  Everyone in the US who has transacted in XRP is put at risk.  That's, what, 8 years worth of market activity?  Trillions traded during that time.  (Everyone who's ever used XRP as an intermediary btwn any other crypto is involved, too - and so is everyone who's got crypto of any kind, BTC/ETH/whatever, on an exchange which ever touched XRP - because SEC might decide to go shake them down, next...  There's not a single exchange operating - that I can think of - which wasn't trading XRP at the time this moronic lawsuit was filed.  That's where everyone's BTC/ETH are... and that's the next domino to fall in the cascade of contagion that SEC has unleashed.  If this case is allowed to proceed, the entirety of the US "crypto" market will resist.)

I don't think the clueless SEC guy gets that.  He's not ******* with a company and a couple of rich dudes.  He's ******* with every US citizen who has ever touched an XRP.

That's a lot of people...  many of whom are highly sophisticated, both financially and technologically.  I'm not sure he realizes the scope of the attack that Clayton launched.

As I see it, he can either retreat or communicate to his superiors that they need to make a policy decision about, at minimum, the present-day status of XRP as a "currency."

The longer this drags on, the more pissed off everyone left in regulatory limbo / potential legal jeopardy is going to get at the SEC just for having to monitor this nonsense...

(I *thought* I detected a whiff of that very same perfume from the judge...  I certainly hope I'm correct about that and that she will put a stop to this idiocy if SEC persists...)

We'll see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

I’m embarrassed for Ripple lawyer for not capitalizing on the judge’s distinction about utility. Rambling on about use-case wasn’t the best approach. Talk about how XRP prevents spamming of the network. Talk about SPAM email/phone calls. XRP is a f’ing postage stamp that minimizes network BS. Make it clear to her.

Indeed, he completely dropped the curveball question at that one. The XRP ledger had utility from day one, and its main distinction is its energy efficiency and speed, making it more suitable for global payments.

He also failed to correct SEC's misrepresentation of ETH as clearly not a security. Before Ethereum existed people could buy the tokens (with Bitcoin), en the entire development was paid from the proceeds of that presale, therefore the investors were completely dependent on the efforts of Butalik and his team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listened to the entirety of the call. 

The tone of the meeting seemed to be quite neutral which is good. I think the judge is willing to be unbiased as they should. 

This meeting was a bit *** for tat. On the whole a bit useless. 

It's the next motion of whether XRP is a digital asset or not that really matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NMNR said:

Just listened to the entirety of the call. 

The tone of the meeting seemed to be quite neutral which is good. I think the judge is willing to be unbiased as they should. 

This meeting was a bit *** for tat. On the whole a bit useless. 

It's the next motion of whether XRP is a digital asset or not that really matters. 

That's not my take on the call at all! The judge expressed a clear opinion on the utility and nature of XRP. That's was beyond unexpected. It was not neutral, it was a clear win for the XRP legal team and their case. Seriously dude, listen again to the recording. There's a reason lawyers are coming out and publicly stating how positive this was for ripple and xrp holders. Also the judge dug into WHY the sec wanted personal financial information, and even the way she did this was loaded, e.g. she asked whether the Blockchain information ripple had already submitted to the sec contained flaws in any way. This is huge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Xrpdude said:

That's not my take on the call at all! The judge expressed a clear opinion on the utility and nature of XRP. That's was beyond unexpected. It was not neutral, it was a clear win for the XRP legal team and their case. Seriously dude, listen again to the recording. There's a reason lawyers are coming out and publicly stating how positive this was for ripple and xrp holders. Also the judge dug into WHY the sec wanted personal financial information, and even the way she did this was loaded, e.g. she asked whether the Blockchain information ripple had already submitted to the sec contained flaws in any way. This is huge. 

Maybe I explained myself poorly. I meant neutral in terms of Brad's lawyers not wanting to disclose personal financial records and SEC asking for them. 

The judge jumped the gun by giving her views on XRP itself which is a nice gift for all of us XRP holders and is more relevant for the next motion I think.  

I'm just assessing things one motion at a time :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

I hope the press pick up on that and put it around.  It might be enough to get investors piling back into XRP. XRP is coiled up and it would not take a lot of pushing

One thing I caught from Jeremy Hogan's most recent video is that the SEC unequivocally stated that only Ripple and Ripple employees sold unregistered securities (according to the SEC of course).   According to Hogan, that gives the green light for exchanges to RE-list XRP again.  Video:-
 

 

Edited by 2ndtimearound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

Maybe one of SEC's mistakes was to take XRP investors for granted.  They had no inkling that the push back would be so strong and well organised.  Maybe they were misled into this fight because they were listening too much to BTC maxis propaganda 

The (sad) irony is that their job is to actually defend us.  They're literally being sued by their (essentially speaking) customers for doing the very opposite of protecting them.  Issuing a lawsuit 3 days before Christmas was basically a "mic drop" by the SEC - it caused maximum damage against retail traders.  Clayton resigned the next day - not a good look.  It's all looking bad for the SEC here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2ndtimearound said:

They're literally being sued by their (essentially speaking) customers for doing the very opposite of protecting them. 

The plural noun you're looking for, is I believe : "charges" 

Def: 

Quote

the responsibility of taking care or control of someone or something.
"the people in her charge are pupils and not experimental subjects"

And the (imho) best descriptive noun for the SEC's actions and inactions is: 

Quote

noun: dereliction of duty
the shameful failure to fulfill one's obligations.

There should be consequences for the SEC's egregious and malicious actions. 
And the apparent fraud evident from what we're learning about (ref: Crypto Eri's video posted yesterday).

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.