I'm going to show you why this SEC lawsuit is probably going to very quickly and ironically determine XRP isn't a security
A precedent lawsuit that the SEC filed against Kik for precisely the same reason, specifically targeted Kik's early sales of their Kin token
continued..
The lawsuit made no attempt to characterize Kin as a security or currency, it just focused on the nature of Kik's $100 million in Kin token sales, which the SEC decided we're close enough to security sales to pursue it.
A pittance of $5 million fine was levied against Kik.
Very important quote
"undisputed facts established that Kik’s sales of “Kin” tokens were sales of investment contracts, and therefore of securities"
Kik's SALES of kin tokens were SALES of investment contracts...
It clearly distinguishes kin tokens from the selling activity. In other words, it was the SELLING that's being characterized as a security transaction, not the asset itself.
If this clear precedent plays out in Ripple's case, they will be levied a pittance of a fine, and XRP will clearly be demonstrated as not within the sights or purview of the SEC.
It seems unfortunate that a lawsuit was the path to accomplish this, but a no-action letter from the SEC was probably not possible because of the discovery process, but it's the next best thing for XRP because it's hard to imagine a different outcome than the Kik scenario.
Some would argue that Kik's token KIN was damaged by the lawsuit, and for obvious reasons, nobody know how it would end. But here's how it did end..
"There will be no trading restrictions on the KIN token, and the token will circulate freely on exchanges. Furthermore, the SEC has not asked Kin to register its tokens as a security."
So quite clearly, XRP won't become a security. Moreover, after the settlement, Kik was allowed to retain their assets and continue forward.
To imagine a different outcome for Ripple's case is to defy legal precedent. Ripple will be fined a symbolic amount and that's fucking it
One other very important point is that we don't even really care about the outcome of the lawsuit. We already know it shouldn't affect XRP, and Ripple's likely going to be able to afford the lawsuit and penalty. This lawsuit is just noise.
After reviewing the official SEC complaint, they're proposing extremely harsh repercussions for CL and BG specifically. This unfortunate news will be quite potent and difficult to defuse until a settlement offer is made
Please don't take anything I've written here as a guarantee of anything. Be prepared for any outcome
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looks like scenario 2 is playing out, which is not a big deal. Shame on you SEC for dragging your ass for so many years. All Ripple ever did was ask for your guidance from day 1.
Let the haters have their day, this is massive progress for XRP and Ripple. Sure, Ripple will probably be fined for selling XRP as a security, but that act doesn't make decentralized XRP inherently a security itself. This clear distinction will be the outcome of the SEC action
First reactions to new Ripple Line-of-Credit (LOC) feature is the belief that it's just Ripple dumping more XRP into the markets, and limiting the perspective to this product, that's true, but Ripple has already stated they are actively buying back from the markets...1/4
to stabilize the price, so you can be sure that Ripple isn't going to let LOC drive the price down.
So what is LOC for? Well as stated in this Ripple news, it's for smaller companies to be able to use ODL without needing all that money up front. Most companies operate.. 2/4
on debt and pay back their debts once they get paid. Using ODL today requires money up front, which keeps a lot of smaller companies from considering using ODL. Now with LOC, smaller companies can take advantage of ODL. This is GREAT news for ODL adoption, and .. 3/4
Many people were asking me about @FlareNetworks. Let me put it this way, if it were possible to process XRP in a trustless manner on the Ethereum blockchain, it would be groundbreaking. This product claims to deliver the net effect of that functionality. 1/?
While not quite as powerful as the promise of Codius, we all know Codius is a lame duck at this time, so being able to leapfrog right into fully matured EVM support is quite amazing. 2/?
One particularly notable possibility is the potential for the creation of a Uniswap hybrid smart contract that allows swaps between ANY two coins, the world's first truly chain-agnostic DEX. That's Babiggely beyond words.. 3/?
Anybody that's being affected by the FUD campaign of @haydentiff, please do send me your questions and concerns so we can address this FUD head on
First, having abundant numbers of validators is NOT statistically more significant security nor added network stability from the point of view of non-state attacks. It can't be compared to Bitcoin, which requires orders of magnitude more nodes to achieve comparable security.
Second, there's a hypothetical peak of 1000 validators before returns diminish. Thus, it's not only useless, but impossible for each customer to be 'compelled' to run their own validator. Does it makes sense for you to be a mechanic because you drive a car?