THEORY 2: PERSONAL GAIN Jay Clayton, prior to the SEC, was a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as its Head of Corporate Practice and Finance. Clayton advised the largest firms in INVESTMENT BANKING and had a long history of advising and working with Goldman Sachs (GS).
Read @Santiag78758327 Thread below for great insight. He points out GS is deeply involved and familiar with the global banking infrastructure including cross-border commodity swaps and the SWIFT PAYMENT SYSTEM. Jay Clayton’s wife has worked for and closely with GS for 2 decades.
The SEC in it’s Complaint admits that since, at least 2015,
Ripple has targeted replacing SWIFT in the international payment arena with XRP. As @sentosumosaba and others have discussed, SBI Holdings is testing the use of XRP in the Fx markets. A former GS executive,
experienced in the Fx markets, resigned from GS to go work for Ripple for this potential use case for XRP. The global Fx market is a $1-7 quadrillion market. In October 2020, 60 days before the SEC enforcement action against Ripple, GS officially made a play into the
cross-border payment market and officially became a competitor to Ripple. Remember, cross-border payments was
the DESIGNED use case for XRP. Also remember, for THE LAST FIVE YEARS Ripple has been the ONLY company offering a replacement to the SWIFT payment system.
GS will now compete with Ripple in both the Fx markets and cross-border payments. It will be interesting to see what
connection, if any, Jay Clayton has with GS after leaving the SEC. If he ends up at GS maybe I can ask @digitalassetbuy to have his son DRAW YOU A PICTURE.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THEORY 1: POLITICAL REVENGE It is known both in the crypto community and the Gov’t that Clayton is perceived to be anti-crypto. President Trump stated that he does not favor Bitcoin OR cryptocurrency. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has publicly stated similar beliefs. Former NSA John
Bolton stated that he was present when he heard Trump instruct Mnuchin to “GO AFTER BITCOIN.” More significant, is that Ripple and its executives, especially CEO @bgarlinghouse, Co-founder @chrislarsensf and General Counsel @s_alderoty have been very critical of the Trump
Administration and Clayton. In 2018 Garlinghouse and CTO @JoelKatz met with Clayton and Trump’s senior officials. Afterwards, Alderoty stated that the U.S. is close to losing the global edge in crypto and Blockchain technology to China. Larsen argued that China can reverse a BTC
This Thread discusses one of the theories that I allege in our legal action against the SEC. It’s called REGULATION by ENFORCEMENT. @HesterPeirce and the new SEC Chairman Elad Roisman have both publicly stated that it SHOULD NOT be practiced. forkast.news/sec-commission…
Former SEC Chairman Clayton stated many times when asked about XRP that the SEC can’t comment on any a specific product or company. He would only say “if it’s a security, we will regulate it.” He was asked repeatedly by CNBC reporters and at FinTech conferences specifically about
XRP. He was asked whether XRP would get the same status as BTC and ETH. He repeatedly stated that the SEC would not comment on specific products. But this runs afoul of the SEC Mission Statement which states the SEC WILL SHARE information about companies to help investors make
This Thread is meant to offer why I believe that Digital Assets and Cryptocurrency investors should be VERY concerned about the SEC enforcement action against XRP. Notice, I said XRP - not Ripple! I’m not here to defend Ripple or Garlinghouse or Larsen. Their lawyers can do that.
If the SEC had charged Ripple with the sale or distribution of unregistered securities in the form of XRP, in the early days, when XRP was ONLY connected to Ripple, with a limited use case, like it did with EOS/KIN, I wouldn’t have acted and I would still have 120 followers. 😂
But the SEC DID NOT limit the claim to early distributions made directly by Ripple or its executives. WHY NOT? Not a single case in the 74 years since the Howey Test was established has the Supreme Court found a security absent a contract or privity between buyers and sellers.
My last thread discussed the Howey test and what factors determine a security under U.S. law. I briefly demonstrated, on its face, how XRP IS NOT a security applying those factors.This thread will show the many ways that the SEC CAN’T prove that TODAY’s XRP constitute securities.
Currencies are excluded from statutory definition of a security.
XRP has been trading in Secondary Markets since 2013. In 2015, the DOJ and
FinCen settled a case with Ripple and determined XRP was virtual currency.
Ripple was classified as a money transmitter of XRP. The settlement required Ripple’s XRP transactions to comply with
laws dealing with currencies or commodities NOT securities. Currency is generally defined as a medium of exchange, unit of account and/or a
store of value.
In the SEC Complaint against Ripple, it alleges that Ripple continues to sell unregistered Securities in the form of XRP. Unlike, in the ICO cases of 2017, the SEC did not only focus on early distributions but made the ridiculous claim that XRP is a security today. Let’s review:
The controlling law on what constitutes a security was handed down in 1946 in the Supreme Court case of SEC v Howey. Howey has set the standard for over 74 years.
The underlying asset in Howey was orange groves. Thus, we must compare the orange Groves to the Digital Asset XRP.
Orange groves were plots of land that were sold to tourists. The investors purchased the lots of land, but also paid the seller money to manage the orange groves. The seller would plant the seeds, water the trees, harvest the oranges and sell the oranges to people and places.
Always remember our democracy is supposed to be a a government “by the people for the people.” I filed an action against the SEC because it and our governmental officials have forgotten who they represent. Yes
The SEC’s mission statement is to “protect investors, promote fairness and share information about companies…to help investors make informed decisions and invest with confidence.” As chairman of the SEC, it was Jay Clayton’s fiduciary duty to enforce the mission statement.
He failed miserably. Instead of protecting investors and sharing
information to help investors make informed decisions about XRP he knowingly and intentionally caused multi-billion-dollar losses to innocent investors.