I don't know if it's possible under US law, but in case intervention is allowed for #XRPHolders in SEC v Ripple, SEC commissioner @HesterPeirce should file an amicus brief, as it'd be THE opportunity to stand for her vision and push for new regulatory policy within the SEC.
Imagine the impact that having an SEC commissioner opining against the SEC's own actions, would provoke on the judge.
Hester Pierce has published a variety of communications with the clear intention to show her dissension with the crypto enforcement actions launched by the SEC.
It's time for her to take the next step and follow a path that will actually make the SEC's high-level decision makers to understand her views and act accordingly. The innovation momentum will not last forever, or at least, not in the US.
Checks and balances can and *should* exist within government organizations. It's not only a judicial duty to surveil the actions undertaken by the executive branch.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After reading 6 or 7 articles about this announcement, I think I finally got to weed out the unsubstantiated noise and actually understand how the USDC/USD settlement and payment process on Visa's treasury will work.
1. Crypto. com users who hold USDC and have a Visa card attached to their Crypto. com account, make USDC payments to Visa merchants.
2. USDC payments are cleared, but funds not immediately transferred by Crypto. com to Visa (i.e. settled).
2/
3. At the end of the day, Crypto. com sends a USDC batch transfer over Ethereum to Visa's Eth address held on Anchorage, hence settling its intra-day payment obligations. Visa is, then, taking some credit risk (which will translate into costs for Visa partners and merchants).
3/
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.
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.
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.
1/
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 ...
2/
... 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.
3/
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.
1/
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).
2/
- 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.
3/
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.
3/
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.