Relist XRP on Coinbase Trends

[MathewAnderson]

After the most recent hearing of the LBRY v. SEC lawsuit on January 30, the Ripple v. SEC lawsuit news has grown more intriguing. The Judge made it abundantly apparent during the hearing that digital assets traded on secondary markets are not securities. The verdict has caused feelings surrounding the Ripple v. SEC case to intensify in the hope that a similar verdict will be rendered soon.

Quote

 

• After the LBRY hearing, the demand to relist XRP on Coinbase and other US-based exchanges has been on the trend in twitter
• XRP price is gaining significant boost as the market rises with the rising demand

 

It should be highlighted that Coinbase did not chose to delist XRP on its own; rather, it did so out of concern for the SEC. It's time for the platform to take a position now that Coinbase shareholders and investors are entitled to trade XRP. Additionally, the latest Flare token airdrop is not available to US dealers.

Furthermore, now that LBRY and XRP are not considered securities, there is a strong push to relist the XRP token.

By the end of 2023, if the series of events occur as predicted. Then the possibility of the Ripple price prediction hitting a new milestone is high. Moreover, the price could form new maximum value and range towards its annual closing target of $1.1043 as per coinpedia.

Ripple’s CEO previously indicated the company will migrate to a crypto-friendlier nation should the SEC win.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, MathewAnderson said:

Furthermore, now that LBRY and XRP are not considered securities, there is a strong push to relist the XRP token.

This is not true. We have to wait for the official ruling on LBRY, but the judge did not declare LBRY to not be a security. He only said his ruling did not cover secondary sales of LBRY because the SEC did not litigate secondary sales of LBRY.

The circumstances of Ripple vs SEC and LBRY vs SEC are very different. If it thinks it can relist legally, Coinbase will do it. It needs the money (transaction fees). 

[Alluvial]

For xrp holders, we really need some language in the judge's rulings (whether it is in the lbry case or ripple case) whether the underlying digital asset is itself a security as opposed to simply a part of the investment contract involving the Howey elements.  If xrp itself (or lbry) is not considered a security, then secondary market transactions do not violate any securities laws.  Then, we should go up dramatically as xrp can be relisted on exchanges, and perhaps more importantly FIs can start using ODL without fear of violating securities laws (and maybe best of all, Bitstamp will finally distribute flare and songbird tokens to US investors - haha). 

The problem is that this legal issue is not exactly before the court - the issue before these courts is whether the companies (ripple, library) violated securities by selling their digital asset as part of an investment contract.  But the judge could (hopefully!) insert language in the ruling such as the underlying digital asset in itself is not a security - that is very possible, but not a certainty. 

It's ridiculous that the SEC has not simply stated this fact about secondary market transactions (which is why John Deaton got involved in the first place).  The SEC's vague position on secondary market transactions has led me to believe that the big banks (which control the SEC IMO) don't want Ripple's technology to take off - the banks make an absolute fortune on cross-border transfers.  Why would they want competition?  GG is not protecting investors, he's protecting big banks.