Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

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

the second paragraph reads “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.” The trusted third party is the bank.

Hence, the #BTC Maxi’s labeled XRP The “Bankers Coin.”The SEC and others need to understand this important design distinction. I say that because in the SEC’s Complaint against Ripple, it seems to take issue, as significant, that Ripple understood that XRP
purchasers routinely

resold XRP to other investors in the United States and other countries. (See SEC Complaint p. 15, para. 88). This issue of secondary market resales of Digital Assets was also
publicly mentioned by Clayton on business channels such as CNBC. The argument that a Digital Asset that

is publicly traded in secondary markets somehow transforms that Digital Asset into a security, is absolutely absurd. If true, then the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple potentially implicates all digital
currencies and/or Digital Assets. Remember, Clayton has publicly stated

that, in his belief, if a person purchases a token and
someone goes out and does a venture and that effort increases the value of the token, it is a
security. He said if a person gets a “return” in the secondary markets from the token, it is a security. The mere fact that

some investors may acquire XRP with the hope that it will
increase in value does not transform #XRP into a security. The same is true of #BTC and #ETH speculators. The same is true with baseball card speculators, gold speculators, art speculators, or Pokémon speculators.

I’ve tweeted several times that the SEC case against XRP poses a potential threat to all of Crypto. Why would the SEC claim that Today’s XRP is a security? With all the claims lately about regulating Crypto including #Bitcoin does the government have all of Crypto in it’s sights?

https://twitter.com/haileylennonbtc/status/1351721155732807684

Why was the SEC Complaint against Ripple full of irrelevant noise? For example, why did the SEC discuss Garlinghouse’s personal sales of XRP while mentioning that he had publicly stated that he was “very long” XRP? It’s not relevant unless the SEC is alleging fraud or

misrepresentation. A CEO often gets paid in stock. A CEO often sells some of his stock. That doesn’t mean he isn’t long the stock or the company. Jeff Bezos sells $1 Billion of Amazon stock every year. Why bring Brad’s XRP sales up if you aren’t claiming fraud or

misrepresentation? It’s absolutely irrelevant to whether XRP is a security! Did the SEC bring it up to make Brad and Larsen look bad? Was it meant to generate outrage so that other Crypto Projects route for the SEC and against Ripple and XRP? Is the strategy of Divide and

Conquer in play here? In a thread to follow, I will show you how even #BITCOIN could be in ⛔️ DANGER ⛔️ @coinbase @krakenfx @UpholdInc @GateHub @cz_binance @BitrueOfficial @Cardano @VitalikButerin @RaoulGMI @APompliano @ethereum @Santiag78758327 @linqtoinc @JpThieriot