Filan - SEC requests telephone conference

[HAL1000]

 

[HAL1000]

It's a t.i.t-for-tat game, the SEC wanted a ton of stuff off Ripple.

Edited September 30, 2021 by HAL1000

[Guest]

I mean obviously Ripple's legal firm would know that this would happen. I'm looking forward to the hearing  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, HAL1000 said:

It's a t.i.t-for-tat game, the SEC wanted a ton of stuff off Ripple.

I think this might be more than that. I think Ripple wants SEC to decide which - Is this about an offering that started 10 years ago and still on going ? Or is this about several offerings, and each of them treated separately ?

Because the SEC claimed both at various stages. 

[HAL1000]

 

[RobertHarpool]

OK … I would be surprised if I’ve asked 30,000 questions in my entire life. So, what’s this about?

I have not seen the questions, but I can take a reasonable guess about what they are.

Bear with me for a second …

I would guess that Ripple’s attorney’s are trying to push the SEC into a corner. You see, the SEC claims that Ripple has been peddling XRP as a security since 2012 or roughly 8 years … which comes to 2,920 days.

Therefore, if Ripple’s attorney’s asked the same question 10 times for each day, then it’d be easy to get to 30K questions.

What were these 10-ish questions?

 

1. Was XRP determined to be a security by the SEC on January 1, 2013?

2. Was ETH determined to be a security by the SEC on January 1, 2013?

3. Was Bitcoin determined to be a security by the SEC on January 1, 2013?

4. Did the SEC drop the requirement for a college education from its employee job description on January 1, 2013?

5. Was Tenrerio found to be mentally incompetent on January 1, 2013?

6. Did hypocrisy become a part of the SEC’s Mission Statement on January 1, 2013?

7. Could GG tell the difference between his pooper and a hole in the ground on January 1, 2013?

8. Why did the SEC think a 1930’s law, written before computers were even invented, could apply to such a complex, multi-faceted technology like DLT on January 1, 2013?

9. Why wasn’t the complaint filed on January 1, 2013?

10. Will the real slim shady please stand up, please stand up?

 

And then simply repeat all these questions for January 2, 2013...

And January 3, 2013...

And January 4, 2013...

For 8 years.

 

Obviously, I don’t think these were the actual questions.

But, It is evident to me that there had to be a lot of repetition though. And that repetition was date oriented. And the purpose is to narrow down the SEC’s complaint …

… because you can can destroy any position if you deconstruct it enough. 

..

Once Ripple's attorneys determine the exact day that security status was determined then they have a launch pad to shred the rest of the SEC's complaint. (i.e. open source, centralized, still in development, use case, etc.) 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by RobertHarpool

[NightJanitor]

I come at this from a different direction... is this the same SEC who demanded 8 whole years of Slack messages largely about what kind of sushi orders everyone at Ripple wanted for lunch?  Hey SEC goose, meet the gander!

So...

Only 29,947?  If there were a way for all of the XRP holders harmed by the SEC to individually intervene, I'm sure we could get that number up.  How many phone lines has the court had to install, by now, to accomodate all of the involved parties?

You're gonna need a bigger switchboard.  (If this drags on through covid panic and gets to open court -> Nancy Grace.)

On the upside, once again, I will say that if the court would merely adopt XRPL, it could monetize those calls or stream the proceedings via video - and get paid in streams of (?????) that it could then use to defray the costs. (Does SEC admit utility?)

(No?  Then on we go.)

Edited October 1, 2021 by NightJanitor