William Hinman Says "XRP Is NOT A Security" In Leaked Court Document

[HAL1000]

 

[HAL1000]

I know Matty comes across as mad to some, but he ain't - but anybody who can find a further source for this, please post below.

[Julian_Williams]

1 hour ago, HAL1000 said:

I know Matty comes across as mad to some, but he ain't - but anybody who can find a further source for this, please post below.

I saw that and did not post because of his strange presentation.  

 

but  guess this is his source

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Julian_Williams

[BillyOckham]

If that is the source then the claim is unsupported.

He replied no to the question of whether he indicated XRP was a security at that meeting.   It says nothing about XRP status other than that.  
 

I wish these guys weren’t so damn keen to connect dots and find things.  Patents etc that prove nothing and may amount to nothing.  This type of mischaracterising Hinmans reply to the question only harms us in my opinion.

 

[Julian_Williams]

19 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

If that is the source then the claim is unsupported.

He replied no to the question of whether he indicated XRP was a security at that meeting.   It says nothing about XRP status other than that.  
 

I wish these guys weren’t so damn keen to connect dots and find things.  Patents etc that prove nothing and may amount to nothing.  This type of mischaracterising Hinmans reply to the question only harms us in my opinion.

 

I think the patents are very relevant information about what is being planned

 

Jingle Inc is a very sane guy, but I agree this is tenuous

Edited August 22, 2021 by Julian_Williams

[solid102]

7 hours ago, BillyOckham said:

If that is the source then the claim is unsupported.

He replied no to the question of whether he indicated XRP was a security at that meeting.   It says nothing about XRP status other than that.  
 

I wish these guys weren’t so damn keen to connect dots and find things.  Patents etc that prove nothing and may amount to nothing.  This type of mischaracterising Hinmans reply to the question only harms us in my opinion.

 

Bingo. Loads of idiots coming out the woods with this bull market. I can only shudder thinking about what it would be like when XRP breaks through ATH

Edited August 22, 2021 by solid102

[HAL1000]

MattyG is no idiot, he introduced the XRP community to Quincy Jones who is definitely not an idiot, Matty just has his own style, that is definitely an acquired taste. I have seen many, many YouTubers who I would class as idiotic shill boys, but I will stick my neck out and say Matty is a bit hyper, but don't dismiss him as an idiot, he is just like many of us, sometimes he gets a bit fomo'd up

[thinlyspread]

10 hours ago, BillyOckham said:

He replied no to the question of whether he indicated XRP was a security at that meeting.   It says nothing about XRP status other than that.  

Yes. End of. 

These goddam youtubers. 

[Danny]

"Mr. Hinman’s personal views as to XRP’s status are dubious..."

Edited August 23, 2021 by Danny

[JASCoder]

For the too lazy of us...

The main point...

Quote

The recent deposition of former Director William Hinman only confirms as much. The SEC tries to pass thatdeposition off as a non-event, “squandered” by Defendants, but the opposite is true. Merely by way of example, Mr.Hinman admitted that prior to him joining the SEC in 2017–but years into the alleged unregistered securities offering by Ripple–the application of the federal securities laws to digital assets was “new for everyone” and “no one knew a whole lot.”Hinman Dep. Tr.36:21-37:9. He further admitted that he could not recall any specific work product generated at the time he joined the SEC relating to federal securities laws and bitcoin, ether or XRP and did not “think people had completely thought through all the ways . . . the securities laws may apply to that activity.”

And the footnote...

Quote

The SEC repeatedly mischaracterizes the deposition testimony from Mr.Hinman and Ripple’s counsel’s motion to strike non-responsive testimony. At his deposition, Mr. Hinman was asked about discussions concerning the application of the federal securities laws to digital assets. His response focused exclusively on XRP, but there was no motion to strike that response. Ripple’s counsel then re-asked about such discussions other than those concerning XRP, and Mr. Hinman again ignored the question and gave an answer that referred exclusively to XRP. Ripple’s counsel moved to strike solely this second, duplicative response “because I asked you for your recollection of meetings that didn’t involve XRP.” Hinman Dep. Tr. at 98:5-98:7. Notably, Mr. Hinman’s testimony is refuted by the SEC’s own communications to the public, as late as October 2020, that the SEC had made no determination as to XRP’s status, see Frank Mossman, TWITTER, https://twitter.com/frank14492100/status/1364278272650076166; and the SEC’s own filings in a case brought by XRP Holders now seeking to intervene in this case, which stated that XRP’s status under the securities laws is being litigated in this case, see Deaton v. SEC, No. 21 CV 00001,Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can BeGranted, ECFNo. 11, at 12 (D.R.I.). Mr. Hinman’s personal views as to XRP’s status are dubious, in any event, given his testimony that not all of the factors laid out in Howey need to be met to be an investment contract. Hinman Dep. Tr. at 203:8–204:10. 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by JASCoder