John Deaton - ETHEREUM IS NOT A SECURITY CLASS ACTION

[HAL1000]

On a personal note, I don't think any digital asset itself should be classed as a security, that gives the SEC too much power and the ability to class almost ANYTHING a security based on their own BS agendas, to put it simply, the oranges themselves, are never securities!

Fight the SEC or crypto in the USA could be placed into the hands of the SEC, who we know can not be trusted, even judges call them out.

Edited March 10 by HAL1000

[VanHasen]

sry I will happily pass that one.

Besides their arrogance, obvious corruption and lies - If there is anything to be called a security it is ETH IMO 

1) biggest ICO in crypto

2) lubin created a tokenfactory full of scams and pump and dumps

3) the change to PoS - organized and pushed from buterin, lubin, consensys (JPM?) - made the network much more centralized and gives the wealthiest entities control over the network

4) the unbelievably huge lump of hypocrisy in everything surrounding buterin/lubin/consensys and parts of the ETH community

no

[VanHasen]

Never forget... The hypocrisy

 

[RipMcGillicuddy]

Deaton couldn't afford not to stand up for ETH at this point due to his now public presence and statements in the past. But defending them is a non-starter for me. They represent the dark arts as much if not more than the SEC itself. 

[HAL1000]

21 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

Deaton couldn't afford not to stand up for ETH at this point due to his now public presence and statements in the past. But defending them is a non-starter for me. They represent the dark arts as much if not more than the SEC itself. 

You're missing the point, he is protecting US... the TOKEN is never the security, how it's packaged, sold/ promoted etc, is where the SEC should be allowed to jump in, that's their job, but what the SEC is trying to do, is wrong. The token, i.e. the underlying asset is never a security within itself, that's what JD is fighting so hard for. XRP itself is NOT a security, neither is ETH, neither are oranges, but if the SEC get their way, then nobody will be able to trade crypto in the USA, without going through a SEC regulated broker / dealer.

That's the massive over reach and power grab that JD is trying to stop.

[RipMcGillicuddy]

33 minutes ago, HAL1000 said:

You're missing the point, he is protecting US... the TOKEN is never the security, how it's packaged, sold/ promoted etc, is where the SEC should be allowed to jump in, that's their job, but what the SEC is trying to do, is wrong. The token, i.e. the underlying asset is never a security within itself, that's what JD is fighting so hard for. XRP itself is NOT a security, neither is ETH, neither are oranges, but if the SEC get their way, then nobody will be able to trade crypto in the USA, without going through a SEC regulated broker / dealer.

That's the massive over reach and power grab that JD is trying to stop.

I've never thought it is that straightforward.

A foundation / company / founders / small group of developers issue something to the public (in this case a token). The sales of said token are then used as a fundraising mechanism for the issuing party to continue development or expand operations. The issuers in fact become quite wealthy. The buyers of said tokens are undoubtedly buying said tokens in hopes of a return on their investment. 

There are other factors that come into play of course, but I have always thought it is easier to prove the above to be true than it is to prove it is untrue. 

We all deep down know what this market is and what it is not. It is a network of speculative trading platforms. Ang the things we are trading were all issued by a founding entity. That sounds a lot like the things that the SEC is precisely in place to regulate. It's just a matter of winning based on the slimmest of technicalities and precedent. 

And all I care about now is winning on that technicality for XRP. I couldn't possibly care even a little bit less about ethereum. 

[Montoya]

1 hour ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

Deaton couldn't afford not to stand up for ETH at this point due to his now public presence and statements in the past. But defending them is a non-starter for me. They represent the dark arts as much if not more than the SEC itself. 

Who is "them"? I will never understand this sophomoric team mentality. You do realize many people own/have owned both XRP and ETH, right? 

[HAL1000]

2 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

I've never thought it is that straightforward.

A foundation / company / founders / small group of developers issue something to the public (in this case a token). The sales of said token are then used as a fundraising mechanism for the issuing party to continue development or expand operations. The issuers in fact become quite wealthy. The buyers of said tokens are undoubtedly buying said tokens in hopes of a return on their investment. 

There are other factors that come into play of course, but I have always thought it is easier to prove the above to be true than it is to prove it is untrue. 

We all deep down know what this market is and what it is not. It is a network of speculative trading platforms. Ang the things we are trading were all issued by a founding entity. That sounds a lot like the things that the SEC is precisely in place to regulate. It's just a matter of winning based on the slimmest of technicalities and precedent. 

And all I care about now is winning on that technicality for XRP. I couldn't possibly care even a little bit less about ethereum. 

Just to clarify, secondary market sales / transactions are what JD is trying to protect, the initial issuer / promoter, well he doesn't care about them. WE need JD to win or anybody in the USA wishing to send even 1 XRP or ETH etc to anybody else, well that could technically be classed as a securities violation by the SEC, if THEY get their way.

[Montoya]

2 hours ago, VanHasen said:

sry I will happily pass that one.

Besides their arrogance, obvious corruption and lies - If there is anything to be called a security it is ETH IMO 

1) biggest ICO in crypto

2) lubin created a tokenfactory full of scams and pump and dumps

3) the change to PoS - organized and pushed from buterin, lubin, consensys (JPM?) - made the network much more centralized and gives the wealthiest entities control over the network

4) the unbelievably huge lump of hypocrisy in everything surrounding buterin/lubin/consensys and parts of the ETH community

no

So, you would rather see the SEC strengthen their wide ranging authority, just so you can see some nebulous "they" get their comeuppance? This is the same mentality that many ETH holders had when they saw the SEC coming after Ripple. And how did that work out for them? The only bad guy here is the SEC. When they attack ETH, it is not Vitalik Buterin or any of the twitter talking heads that suffer, it is the millions of investors around the world.

[Montoya]

10 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

I've never thought it is that straightforward.

A foundation / company / founders / small group of developers issue something to the public (in this case a token). The sales of said token are then used as a fundraising mechanism for the issuing party to continue development or expand operations. The issuers in fact become quite wealthy. The buyers of said tokens are undoubtedly buying said tokens in hopes of a return on their investment. 

There are other factors that come into play of course, but I have always thought it is easier to prove the above to be true than it is to prove it is untrue. 

We all deep down know what this market is and what it is not. It is a network of speculative trading platforms. Ang the things we are trading were all issued by a founding entity. That sounds a lot like the things that the SEC is precisely in place to regulate. It's just a matter of winning based on the slimmest of technicalities and precedent. 

And all I care about now is winning on that technicality for XRP. I couldn't possibly care even a little bit less about ethereum. 

So, Machiavellian self interest. At least its honest, I suppose. Wouldn't a better goal be to support an across the board fair and just legal treatment of all crypto?

[VanHasen]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:41 PM, VanHasen said:

4) the unbelievably huge lump of hypocrisy in everything surrounding buterin/lubin/consensys and parts of the ETH community

Here we go