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]. ImageImage
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. Image
@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. ImageImageImage
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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… Image
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". Image
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. Image
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Arturo Portilla

Arturo Portilla Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Arturo_P_A

5 Jan

While the entire US crypto industry (exchanges, funds, associations, PsPs, lobbyists, etc) is currently focused on fighting the AML rules proposed by FinCEN, the XRP Community has been left ALONE fighting the securities battle FOR THE BENEFIT of the whole industry.

The entire US crypto industry (excluding the XRP Community) has been miserably failing to acknowledge that, until now, all the SEC has had for purposes of characterising a blockchain-based token as a security under the Securities Act of 1933 ...

... is a 75 year-old judicial precedent (i.e. 1946 Howey Test), and some non-binding internal guidance. That's it. Nothing more. No clear federal regulations and no clear binding precedents.

Read 10 tweets
25 Dec 20
Just finished reading the SEC v. Ripple Complaint — Most of the allegations in re. XRP being a security are built around the false idea that investors bought an asset that had no 'use' beyond speculative purposes.

This is exactly where their whole case cracks up.

Ripple has to properly document and demonstrate all the 'uses' made available by the XRPL since the beginning of times. Some of them include:

- Immediate and cheap peer-to-peer transfers (everyone could be its own ODL since XRPL was first launched).

- Every XRP investor has had access to a fully functional decentralized exchange since the very beginning, being able to use XRP to trade against a variety of IOUs.

- XRP has been a very useful instrument for payments since it came into existence.

Read 12 tweets
9 Mar 20
March 9, 2020

Congressman Paul Gosar introduced the "Cryptocurrency Act of 2020" to determine which US regulator is responsible for which digital assets (DAs).

The proposal divides DAs into 3 main categories:



1) Crypto-Commodities are defined as goods or services, including derivatives, that:

a)have full or substantial fungibility.
b)the markets treat with no regard as to who produced the goods/ services; and
c)rest on a blockchain or decentralized cryptographic ledger.

2) Crypto-Currencies are defined as representations of USD or any synthetic derivatives therein, either based in algorithms, smart contracts or collateral to stabilize against USD.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!