6) what research, articles, publications or technical resources did you review before giving the speech;
7) what input did the founder of the #ETH foundation provide you before reaching your opinion;
8) what other digital assets did you review or compare to #ETH before speech;
9) did you send any emails or messages with any lawyers or staff at Simpson Thatcher before giving that speech;
10) list each person you spoke to about the speech before giving it; etc
Notice I haven’t asked what was said yet so there is no privilege argument.
Many more.
But if the #SEC is going to object to these basic questions, I would go to the Judge and ask the Judge to appoint a Special Master (ie the Judge herself or a retired Judge) to preside over the deposition and rule on objections live on the spot.
Just a few of my initial thoughts
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One reason of many why the Hinman Deposition is a BIG DEAL:
Excerpt of Hinman Speech:
“And putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure,
current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.”
Hinman met with a founder of #Ethereum 1 week before the speech and again afterwards.
1) Putting aside the fundraising is a BIG ASIDE;
2) What did the founder say that helped form his “understanding”;
3) @Ripple’s lawyers will have him walk through his “understanding” of decentralization;
4) have him admit he communicated his understanding to market participants which created the standard within the market;
5) show that #XRP’s decentralization meets that understanding; and
9k people around the world. At the time of #ETH’s ICO, the #ETH blockchain WAS NOT yet developed. It was developed one year later using the $18 million.
This exact scenario was shutdown by the Court in the #Telegram case.
that without that purchase of #ETH the Ethereum Foundation would not have survived. Vitalik also stopped the exchanges from trading #ETH on a particular occasion (with good intentions). These examples are not representations of decentralization, however.
It doesn’t matter if you’re investing in cryptocurrencies or stocks. Whether it’s #Bitcoin or #AMZN, selling is a difficult call to make.
My personal struggle with the “should I sell” decision is likely a common struggle.
The decision to buy is easy. You’ve done your research
and you truly believe in the utility of the token - so you buy. In a bull market with everything going up - you buy. You believe in the business or the product - so you buy. You believe you have inside information - so you buy. You experience FOMO - so you buy.
But considering @sprwn has used the SEC as his only source in his unprovoked attack of me, I will quote my response to the SEC’s attack so that it is in proper context for those that are unaware:
“The SEC has attempted to portray XRP Holders’ counsel as an unhinged conspiracy
theorist crusader unfairly targeting the SEC. Attorney Deaton’s criticism of the former leadership of the SEC is mostly based on the media’s reporting regarding troubling discoveries of conflicts of interests, self-dealings and personal gain regarding former Director of
The SEC charged the two executives with reckless conduct for the entirety of their tenures working at @Ripple.
What that means is that the SEC must prove that Brad and Chris actually believed #XRP was a security or it was reckless for them not to realize #XRP was a security.
When determining recklessness the court looks to what an objective person would believe under the circumstances.
What Ripple is arguing here is that if at any point during the last 8 years the SEC failed to classify #XRP as a security in connection with their own policies,
“Cryptocurrencies (sometimes called tokens or digital assets) are a lawful means of storing or transferring value and may fluctuate in value as any commodity would. In the abstract, an investment of money in a cryptocurrency utilized by members of a
decentralized community connected via blockchain technology, which itself is administered by this community of users rather than by a common enterprise, is not likely to be deemed a security under the familiar test laid out in S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co.”
-Judge Castel (Telegram-1)
Judge Castel also made clear:
“the security in this case is not simply the Gram, which is little more than alphanumeric cryptographic sequence. Howey refers to an investment contract, i.e. a security, as ‘a contract, transaction or scheme’,”