THE SEC WAS WARNED INVESTORS WOULD LOSE BILLIONS. Considering the magnitude of an SEC enforcement action against the 3rd largest Digital Asset, XRP, the SEC, and it’s Chairman, Jay Clayton, was sent a letter, prior to the filing of the action, from former Chief Joseph Grundfest.
He warned Clayton and the SEC that the mere filing of the lawsuit, declaring XRP an unregistered security, “would result in an UNPRECEDENTED scenario of billions of
dollars in losses resulting from an exodus of intermediary market service providers.” That’s a direct quote from
a former Chief who saw all this coming. The “exodus of intermediary market service providers” has already taken place. @coinbase@krakenfx and almost every other service provider has suspended trading of XRP in the U.S. Others, like @BitwiseInvest and @Grayscale have liquidated
their XRP holdings. Remember, XRP has been publicly traded in the U.S. and globally for SEVEN PLUS YEARS with the SEC’s full awareness and implicit permission. The SEC was aware that XRP was being actively traded on over 200 exchanges globally, including in the U.S. Clayton was
warned by Grundfest that if the SEC initiated an enforcement action declaring XRP an unregistered security, in present day, these exchanges would have no choice but to delist and/or halt XRP trading from fear of an SEC action against them. Grundfest informed Clayton that he was
“aware of no instance in which the simple announcement of a commission’s enforcement procedure has, absent allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, caused multi-billion-dollar losses of innocent
third parties.” In the SEC’s Complaint against @Ripple, @bgarlinghouse and
@chrislarsensf, there are NO allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. Considering that no fraud was being alleged and the fact that XRP was allowed to be traded for over 7 years, Grundfest pleaded with with Clayton stating “NO PRESSING REASON COMPELS IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION”. But Clayton and the SEC IGNORED this grave warning. Despite billions and billions of losses to innocent investors, the SEC filed the most significant SEC case in modern history. Considering no exigency existed and there was no immediate need to file the case, Grundfest,
himself, questioned Clayton’s and the SEC’s true motive. He said applying existing securities’ laws to #XRP but not #ETH calls into question the “commission’s discretion.” In short, Grundfest was saying “if today’s XRP is a security, so is ETH”. He was basically going on the
record and saying that not only did it NOT make any sense, but it would be fundamentally unfair for the SEC to file this action. He basically told Clayton and the SEC that if you file this case, claiming XRP is a security, it’s because of OTHER REASONS, unrelated to the law.
Clayton and others were well aware that the mere filing of the enforcement action, not limited to specific distributions of XRP directly from Ripple, but alleging that all XRP constitutes securities, could prove to be a KILL SHOT against Ripple and XRP.
Considering the magnitude of this case one would think that Clayton and the Enforcement Chief would certainly want to see it through. But, instead, they both left the SEC forever. 🤔
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ripple executives like @bgarlinghouse@chrislarsensf@JoelKatz@s_alderoty have stated that XRP was not designed to pay for a cup of coffee. Instead, it was
designed for the banks and money service providers. In fact, XRP was labeled by the hard-core #Bitcoin community as
the “Bankers Coin.” XRP, as the Bankers Coin, has been helping several financial institutions and/or money service providers during the last several years. Help to these financial institutions runs afoul with the original vision of #Bitcoin, which was to replace and/or bypass
the banks. If you disagree, simply read the first paragraph of Satoshi Nakamoto’s White Paper. It reads “Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.” The first sentence of
One other thing that I must make clear: I’m not claiming that the Writ of Mandamus I filed is easy to win. In fact, over 90% lose because the Court finds that there are other legal remedies available and/or because it involves a discretionary function of the Officer or Agency
that the Petition for Writ was filed against. For example, the Court could find that there are other remedies available to XRP Holders, such as, filing a motion to intervene in the SEC v. Ripple case. What I’m claiming, here, is that it is easy, IMO, to demonstrate that 2021’s
XRP is NOT a security. Sorry, but I felt compelled to explain the distinction, so that people don’t misunderstand what I’m claiming. If forced to file a motion to intervene; and, if granted, we would file a Motion For Summary Judgment asking the Court to declare, as a matter of
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,
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.