Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

I HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM FRIDAY’S HEARING in

@SEC_Enforcement 🆚 @Ripple @bgarlinghouse and @chrislarsensf

My honest thoughts:

First, I already believed that #XRPHolders meet the legal standard to successfully intervene. If you objectively read the 4 page pre-motion

letter (or formal motion) it’s hard to deny that we meet the 4 factors for intervention (even the haters should struggle to say we don’t). That doesn’t mean we will win the motion. The SEC will likely say that we aren’t necessary in the case because its not claiming that the #XRP

that we hold are securities and will therefore try its best to keep us out of the case.

Based on what was said, by both sides, at this hearing, however, helps prove that #XRPHolders’ interests need to be represented during the prosecution of the case.

I won’t spell it out

just yet because I want to wait until I see the SEC’s response to our pre-motion letter. But I got the transcript so I could see and read the actual words and use those same words to our benefit, later, if possible. I heard someone say once or twice that “words mean things folks”

@digitalassetbuy

I read what SEC Lawyer Jorge Tenreiro said on the record. And @attorneyjeremy was 💯 on point with what he said in his recent video. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Jeremy is correct when he said that the SEC may be receiving requests for no-action letters

from the exchanges about trading #XRP. But let’s not forget that one year before the SEC’s enforcement action against Ripple and #XRP an exchange (likely @coinbase) asked the SEC about listing #XRP in 2019, and didn’t receive a response form the SEC discouraging it.

But they also didn’t get enough clarity to give them confidence to NOT suspend the trading once the case was filed.

I’m afraid that people have an expectation that exchanges will now re-list or un-suspend #XRP based solely on a comment made by an SEC lawyer who was generally

referencing Section 4 exemptions.

I HOPE I’M PROVEN WRONG!

I will literally celebrate being proven wrong by the exchanges. I believe the exchanges that delisted or suspended #XRP will require more certainty that they will not end up in the SEC’s crosshairs over #XRP.

Below are the exact words used by SEC lawyer Jorge Tenreiro. When you consider how inconsistent the SEC has been regarding #XRP specifically and Digital Assets in general, do you believe that exchanges are going to consider the below comments enough to take on any risk?

Notice I didn’t ask whether they should, but whether you honestly believe they will. CEO’s are averse to risk. See below. And I’m not criticizing it. Look at what’s happening in this case already.

Even though the defense turned over all #XRP transactions by the two executives

https://twitter.com/jespow/status/1368065703274631169

AND there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, the SEC is seeking all personal banking records of these two individuals and their families.

You don’t think other CEOs aren’t watching closely as to the extent of government overreach and intrusion? Remember a thread

not too long ago when I said that when a prosecutor doesn’t have the law or facts on his side he sometimes resorts to trying to pound the defendants into submission or settlement. That’s what’s happening IMO - just as I warned.

Don’t take my word for it - let’s review the

transcript. That is the Magistrate Judge addressing the issue.

What CEO wants to risk the U.S. government taking a magnifying glass to their personal finances along with their wives, children, business partners, customers, etc.

Some of you might think I’m on the side of the exchanges or Ripple. Not true. I’m against gov’t intrusion.

If you have all the sales, you have all the sales. Who gives a crap what Brad Garlingouse or Chris Larsen spend their money on.

Let’s assume that the government has an XRP sales transaction that netted Chris Larsen $50 million. You can prove he sold $50 million worth of XRP on

a particular day. Let’s say he bought a $50 million Yacht with the proceeds (I have no idea what the man owns). Who cares? In a fraud case, it’s potentially relevant to show motive to commit fraud to pay for your lavish lifestyle. Even if the government got all financial records

and could show this type of great wealth and spending habits, the judge is likely to not allow it into evidence before the jury because it’s not necessary to prove that he failed to register XRP. So why fight so hard for documents and evidence that is likely ruled inadmissible?

BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WOULD LEARN ABOUT THE LAVISH LIFESTYLE OF THESE EXECUTIVES.

The Crypto Community could stay divided.

Finally, If the exchanges are asking the SEC for clarity based on what was said at the hearing, are we confident the SEC will issue no-action letters and

allow #XRP to be re-listed and traded?

Think of this: the SEC did not seek a preliminary injunction to stop Ripple from selling #XRP. There is nothing stopping Ripple from selling #XRP to fund operations.

If the SEC informs the exchanges that they can trade #XRP and #XRP

doubles from here, RIpple has twice the money to defend the case and, yes, legal fees are considered operational expenses.

Maybe I’m just a cynic.

But I truly hope the SEC and the exchanges prove me wrong.