Jump to content

Jeremy Hogan: Will Ripple's Fair Notice defense survive?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

 

they continually talked about the need for "regulatory clarity" while doing every possible to avoid going near a regulator that could have given them clarity so they could continue selling XRP.

 

Eh?..., 2018 and 2019 Ripple has been on record asking the “SEC” for regulatory clarity in the crypto space. SECs own admission over the last 10 years, is that they were not sure. The Howey test wasn’t  fit for purpose in 2010 when it came to evaluating the crypto, less so 10 years later . Slow to react, slow to amend out dated laws and slow to realise they are hamstringing their own country while the rest of the world has already classified XRP as not a  security.... you really couldn’t make this up..... leader of the free world 😵🙈🙉🙊

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the consensus  of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. 

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.

:hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, xerxesramesepolybius said:

So the consensus  of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. 

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.

:hi:

That’s just because you don’t understand the bigger picture. They’re innovators, and big innovations tend to come before regulations can be established to regulate them because they didn’t exist before to regulate... we’re saying going to the SEC would have resulted in a complete ignorance and understanding of the innovation at hand and instead they would just have gone “yeap, it’s a security and we’re regulating it and slapping a big label on it with the word “SECURITY” on top without taking the time to actually understand the technology and network that was being built out and developed, in turn stifling innovation and never allowing it to happen. You must have SOME understanding of this, right? 
 

Imagine you were somehow sent and stuck in the past, before electricity was discovered, with a briefcase full of belongings, including a cellphone, a compact yet powerful LED flashlight and other cool tech stuff. If you showed just the flashlight to anyone, you’d likely be considered either a sorcerer or some otherworldly being and you’d either be hunted and killed or prodded and experimented on. 
 

You’d be better off just settling in a distant cave and living your life out in the woods, or just hiding your tech and trying to get by as a pleb, if you looked enough like them. Showing your tech would do you no good and instead harm you because no amount of explaining would change their minds. 
 

This comparison is OBVIOUSLY an exaggeration but it’s just the first thing that came to my mind to put it differently than other members already have with mentioning the things facebook and others had to put up with that you seem to keep ignoring or not understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

So the consensus  of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. 

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.

:hi:

Not avoiding regularity clarity, avoiding taking actions that would clearly make it a security. I will assume the SEC's claim that Ripple didn't contact them before launch is true. But they were constantly seeking guidance and regulatory clarity after that. The SEC refused to provide it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KarmaCoverage said:

Ripple has been talking to the SEC for 7 years.

The SEC even ran a node on the XRPL.

Plus FinCEN fined Ripple calling XRP a "currency" in 2015

If Ripple had been talking to the SEC for 7 years, then why did the legal filing from the SEC not mention it once? Not once in that document does it say that Ripple asked us "this", and we told them "that".  That would have been central evidence in this case - either for or against. If the SEC had advised them in 2014 that they should not sell xrp, or not give it away, or not pay staff with it in 2014, it would have appeared in the doc.

8 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

Indeed. If after the FinCEN fining they had gone to the SEC and got a No Action letter there and then, things would not be playing out like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, jbjnr said:

But just for once @xerxesramesepolybiusis probably right. As far as we can ascertain from the legal filings - Ripple actively avoided the SEC despite whining about legal clarity because

a) They knew the SEC would say. F-No!

b) They preferred to ask forgiveness later than permission first.

There were no legal guidelines other than the Howey test and whilst the SEC has hosed things up big time, Ripple clearly knew exactly what they were doing and have gamed the system all the way. 

 

Having said that, for me the trial is all but over now. After the Judge has denied access to the legal docs that Ripple received, there's no way the SEC can risk losing the case and setting legal precedent. They surely must settle.

They presumably felt that they had to develop actual use cases because until they did that it could only be deemed a security. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

So the consensus  of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. 

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.

:hi:

Then your business would have been strangled at birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Every crypto token is a potential security until the SEC says it ain't = no business can operate like that in the real world, but that's kind of what the legal world has had to deal with since the birth of this industry. Ridiculous is another way of putting it, when Henchman came out and gave ETH a pass of sorts and nobody else at the SEC came out immediately saying no,no, that's wrong etc, then from a legal point of view, the SEC could be seen as making it up as they go along, legal grey area is an understatement.

Edited by HAL1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HAL1000 said:

Every crypto token is a security until the SEC says it ain't = nobody can operate like that in the real world, but that's kind of what the legal world has had to deal with since the birth of this industry. Ridiculous is another way of putting it, when Henchman came out and gave ETH a pass of sorts and nobody else at the SEC came out immediately saying no,no, that's wrong etc, then from a legal point of view, the SEC could be seen as making it up as they go along, legal grey area is an understatement.

And yet when prodded, the SEC says they haven’t made any official statements saying that BTC and ETH are not securities. Funny isn’t it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Neurotoxin said:

And yet when prodded, the SEC says they haven’t made any official statements saying that BTC and ETH are not securities. Funny isn’t it? 

Exactly, BOTH the SEC and its leadership have no real legal framework as such to work within when it comes to crypto, so have somewhat abused their positions to achieve rather dubious goals. Ripple have I believe tried to engage at a legal level with the SEC for years, but the SEC itself, has no real idea how to deal with crypto within securities law, so they have abused this ambiguity for their own personal gain.

I'm sure 99% of XRP holders have no relationship with Ripple and none of us thought we were investing in Ripple, so to treat XRP as a security at this point, is IMO insane. It's not like working at the SEC and getting paid at the same time by a company heavily connected to ETH or moving on to a company that is now trying to float a BTC ETF etc, now that would be perfectly legal and show that the SEC where a law enforcement agency we could all trust, and its leaders are all as white as snow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jbjnr said:

If Ripple had been talking to the SEC for 7 years, then why did the legal filing from the SEC not mention it once? Not once in that document does it say that Ripple asked us "this", and we told them "that".  That would have been central evidence in this case - either for or against. If the SEC had advised them in 2014 that they should not sell xrp, or not give it away, or not pay staff with it in 2014, it would have appeared in the doc.

Because it's the SECs lawyers' jobs to win the case, not provide arguments that support Ripple's side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, xerxesramesepolybius said:

So the consensus  of this thread seems to be that investors are happy Ripple avoided getting regulatory clarity leading to them getting in enormous trouble with the SEC. 

I for one wish they had done the right thing and gone seen the SEC much earlier.

I have nothing more to say on the topic. Let's see how it turns out.

:hi:

I don't have time to read the whole document, but does it say when Ripple eventually went to see the SEC? They didn't in 2012-2013. Did they in 2014 onwards? You'd imagine they did, because otherwise it would be extremely weird for the SEC to bring a case against Ripple in late 2020 for their actions 8 years ago.

I agree with the opinion that Ripple are in a legal grey area and chose not to go talk to the SEC as they didn't wanna risk XRP being deemed a security even if they thought it wasn't. Not returning the SEC's call was likely nothing illegal. Dodgy? Sure. But does it lend any actual weight to XRP being a security? Nah.

On a more general note, I'll admit I haven't followed the court case that closely but the main purpose/ outcome of the court case is gonna be a decision about whether Ripple had fair notice or not, right? If they are proven not to have had fair notice, then Ripple win the case. Is that correct?

Or is the case actually going to conclude as to whether XRP is a security or not? I was under the impression that it wasn't going to come to an actual conclusion about that. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

 

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.