VanHasen Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Just now, Ripley said: I’m confident that every tweet from him goes through legal first. yup, thats for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian_Williams Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 It is true Gensler had to be careful not to add more fuel to the fire , but his demeaner, giggling and not answering straight questions, is very childish. I was hoping he was better and more serious than that. I fear he might not be up to the job, but I guess no one could be worse than Clayton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipMcGillicuddy Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 The fact Brad refers to the affidavit, as opposed to anything that would have come from the depo, does make one think that either the depo did not happen or Hinman refused to answer even the most obvious of questions. But again, I think they are just lining up their ducks to show during trial that Fair Notice defense holds up and these kooks refuse to offer any clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanHasen Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 11 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said: It is true Gensler had to be careful not to add more fuel to the fire , but his demeaner, giggling and not answering straight questions, is very childish. I was hoping he was better and more serious than that. I fear he might not be up to the job, but I guess no one could be worse than Clayton. I for one am absolutely not suprised by what gensler said on crypto regulation. Not at all. We know that in US the regulators are fighting a war of who gets the authority to regulate this honeypot called crypto - nothing else this is Gensler would never weaken the SEC`s position more than his commissioners already did - Ripples Fair notice defense gets them nervous I can imagine - ripple layed out a plan to fight the SEC for companies may be sued in the future. thats why the SEC can`t afford ripple to win on the fair notice defense (even more now as the world knows that gensler is going to stick with the regulate by enforcement actions strategie) - of course he says there is already clarity -- even if the ripple suit is/would be over already, he would have said exactly that 43 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said: or Hinman refused to answer even the most obvious of questions. as john e deaton pointed out @thinkingcrypto - its not much of the matter if and what hinman would answer to their questions (he could plead the fifth all over again) but on the depo ripple would be able to walk him through his speech about ETH fundraising, decentralization, etc -- word by word and point to the flaws of his understanding especially ETH compared to XRP. This brings the facts in front of the court! Julian_Williams and RipMcGillicuddy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanHasen Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 As stated above, its a regulators war Live4xrp, FOOD, RipMcGillicuddy and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipMcGillicuddy Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Yep, that tweet from Quintenz couldn't have made that anymore clear haha. They see dollar signs. Probably using taxpayer funding to pay lobbyists to lobby Congress on behalf of the agencies. Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASCoder Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 6 hours ago, Ripley said: I’m confident that every tweet from him goes through legal first. If BG is referring to something already in the public sphere, I'd expect his lawyers to green light his mention ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 35 minutes ago, JASCoder said: If BG is referring to something already in the public sphere, I'd expect his lawyers to green light his mention ? Absolutely. The lawyers will have to confirm that it is in the public sphere for themselves, and that it doesn't negatively impact Brad's or Ripple's chances at the court. David's past statements, for example, were taken out of context in the lawsuit even though they were based on public and well-understood facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frisia Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, RipMcGillicuddy said: or Hinman refused to answer even the most obvious of questions. Well that would mean that Hinman did not reply to the questions that were pre-agreed between Ripple and SEC. That would be weird right? I think those questions that were agreed in advance would focus on the matter into which extent this speech was agreed or checked in advance by SEC members/ staff and for that reason cannot be defined as purely personal opinions. Edited August 4, 2021 by Frisia Grammar RipMcGillicuddy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frisia Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 2 hours ago, RipMcGillicuddy said: Yep, that tweet from Quintenz couldn't have made that anymore clear haha. They see dollar signs. Probably using taxpayer funding to pay lobbyists to lobby Congress on behalf of the agencies. Unreal. If I understood Quintez well these borders have already been established. Crypto is a type of commodity unless it is sold as an "investment contract". Only in that case the token would enter into the jurisdiction of the SEC. Is this the main question and of course the reason of "sharpening of knives" between commissions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanHasen Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 He is joking, right? lol FOOD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyOckham Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, VanHasen said: He is joking, right? lol He’s trolling us. The rules on equities from 16 years ago need updating but the one from 1946 is clear on digital assets? VanHasen, RipMcGillicuddy, FOOD and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipMcGillicuddy Posted August 5, 2021 Share Posted August 5, 2021 6 minutes ago, BillyOckham said: He’s trolling us. The rules on equities from 16 years ago need updating but the one from 1946 is clear on digital assets? Absolutely feels that way. Won't sit well if they get away with this. BillyOckham 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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