I'm perplexed that neither @coincenter nor @BlockchainAssn have issued a single statement on SEC v. Ripple (let alone fight the industry-harming interpretation of securities laws), despite this case CLEARLY falling within these advocacy groups' missions [attached for reference]. 
I see no single strategic reason, beyond perhaps management bias, for these blockchain/crypto [more like BTC/ETH] advocates, to not fight the SEC's harmful predilection to regulate crypto through reckless enforcement actions that destabilize the industry as a whole.
The same goes for @DigAssetMarkets.
These advocacy groups describe themselves as entities created with the sole purpose to help creating adequate regulatory frameworks for digital assets, yet they choose to relinquish the single most important opportunity to shape the landscape.
These advocacy groups describe themselves as entities created with the sole purpose to help creating adequate regulatory frameworks for digital assets, yet they choose to relinquish the single most important opportunity to shape the landscape.
@coincenter, @BlockchainAssn and @DigAssetMarkets, have members and supporters who, in some way (either by providing trading, custody, investment or payment services), offer support for cryptos that, like XRP, could be recklessly classified by the SEC as non-compliant securities.
Notably, @Ripple is not only a member of the @BlockchainAssn, but the association itself has appointed a) Ripple's @s_alderoty as a member of its board, and b) @RonwHammond (former government affairs employee at Ripple), as its Director of Government affairs.
Likewise, @michellebond111, former Head of Government and Regulatory Affairs at @Ripple, has been appointed as CEO of @DigAssetMarkets.
Yet these advocacy groups have failed to share any signs of concern on the overreaching interpretation of securities laws made by the SEC.
Yet these advocacy groups have failed to share any signs of concern on the overreaching interpretation of securities laws made by the SEC.
If the SEC v. Ripple case isn't the perfect opportunity for these groups to actually advocate for the whole crypto industry (for a millionth time, this is not only about Ripple and XRP), I don't know what they will be willing to advocate for, or under which circumstances.
Perhaps they'll wait until the SEC launches an enforcement action against the Ethereum Foundation, but if such an event does occur, it will most definitely be too late to get involved in the matter.
Diving deeper into this, it happens that the @BlockchainAssn has a so-called 'Litigation Working Group', which is supposed to "help fight legal battles that could benefit the entire crypto industry".
The group has gone as far as filing an Amicus Brief in the Telegram case.
The group has gone as far as filing an Amicus Brief in the Telegram case.
In the Amicus Brief filed in the SEC v. Telegram case, the @BlockchainAssn expressed its concerns on the potential consequences of the SEC's regulation by enforcement approach, as well as the stretched interpretations of securities laws.
theblockchainassociation.org/blockchain-ass…
theblockchainassociation.org/blockchain-ass…
Why the @BlockchainAssn is no longer interested in being involved in these kinds of legal proceedings (despite the SEC. v Ripple case being several orders of magnitude more relevant than the ones brought by or before Telegram and Kik), is way beyond my understanding.
As to @coincenter, it's noteworthy that their Executive Director, @jerrybrito, has been eager to share that Coincenter has actively written about why BTC and ETH should not be deemed as securities, whilst highlighting that the non-profit has "nothing to say about Ripple".
Interestingly, in the ETH blog-post, Coincenter's @valkenburgh, uses arguments that could as well apply to XRP. I'm literally unable to find any relevant differences between ETH and XRP when it comes to these particularities.
What the team at @coincenter fails to acknowledge (perhaps deliberately) is that ETH could eventually be deemed a security under the exact same arguments made by the SEC against Ripple, and that by getting involved in the Ripple case, they could end-up helping ETH indirectly.
After all this tweets and research, I'm really struggling to find any reasonable explanation beyond management bias. By getting involved in the SEC v. Ripple case, these groups could be indirectly protecting their own agendas and interests, yet they choose not to do so.
@coincenter has asked for donations with the intention to fund legal actions against overreaching government initiatives(FinCEN recordkeeping rule proposal).
I'm sure they would receive a record-breaking amount of donations if they were to participate in the SEC v. Ripple case.
I'm sure they would receive a record-breaking amount of donations if they were to participate in the SEC v. Ripple case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
