Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

This is significant evidence in @SECGov 🆚 @Ripple & and even more significant evidence in #XRPHolders 🆚 @SECGov.

@CRYPTOcounselo2 does a great job summarizing the relevant statements and admissions contained in the video shared. Read the thread.

Some additional thoughts:

https://twitter.com/CRYPTOcounselo2/status/1430418405811761155

Amy Starr is likely one of the fact witnesses from the #SEC that #Ripple elected to depose in addition to William Hinman.

Her name was brought up in the Hinman deposition. See pic 👇

In the Consensus 2019 video Amy states “we have people that really understand the technology.”

Amy Starr states that at the #SEC “we developed an expertise” in blockchain technology and that at the #SEC “we participate internationally.”

Why is this all significant? One, #XRP was internationally recognized as a non-security!

Two, the #SEC was an expert and understood

blockchain technology so well YET it chose to NOT bring a case against #Ripple or #XRP for 7.5 years even though it aggressively pursued others between 2017-2019.

This makes the decision to file the case on Clayton’s last day even more arbitrary, capricious and suspicious.

The other HUGE piece of evidence are the statements by @coinbase’s General Counsel of Business Lines & Markets, Dorothy Dewitt.

She made these comments 3 months AFTER #Coinbase listed #XRP.

Most significant is that we know #Coinbase met with the #SEC in early 2019 to

specifically discuss #Coinbase’s decision to list #XRP. It is very likely that #Coinbase met with Amy Starr who was a “senior person in the division with oversight of novel securities” and later joined the FinHub unit at the #SEC.

Bottom line: Amy Starr worked for Hinman in the

Division of Corporate Finance. She apparently set up the Hinman meeting with Joe Lubin, Co-founder of #Ethereum and founder of Consensys.

Dorothy Dewitt, a General Counsel at #Coinbase, stated that #Coinbase worked closely with the #SEC and that #Coinbase would:

“analyze each token one by
one to make sure they’re NOT securities BEFORE listing them.”

She said #Coinbase implemented a “robust analysis as possible” which “included an #Howey analysis” and that #Coinbase “felt very confident in its robust analysis.”

She said each token

listing must be “defensible before listing in the U.S.”

She made sure to point out that #Coinbase “rejected tokens” because they failed this robust #Howey securities’ analysis.

Even more significant, she stated that #Coinbase “considered the #SEC’s framework” and “found it

helpful” when developing #Coinbase’s own framework in determining
whether a token is a security.

She stated #Coinbase’s framework did something the #SEC’s framework didn’t do.

She stated that #Coinbase’s framework has weightings assigned to each individual factor.

She stated that both the #SEC’s framework and the #Coinbase
framework “reinforced Hinman’s view that a token can start out as a security but later not be.”

Bottom line: at this meeting ABOUT #XRP, the #SEC DID NOT disagree with the #Coinbase analysis - which partly relies

on the #SEC’s analysis - that #XRP IS NOT a security.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the United States 🇺🇸, there is no bigger market participant than @coinbase.

Isn’t it ironic that a HUGE piece of evidence that #Ripple will rely on to establish its Fair Notice Defense - that market

participants reasonably believed that #XRP is not a security- comes from a market participant that delisted #XRP.

Remember, the Fair Notice Defense is an objective analysis. What did market participants believe?

This is even more critical evidence for #XRPHolders.

If #XRPHolders get a chance to be heard in this case, this is some of the evidence I will be presenting on behalf of #XRPHolders to show that regardless of whether #XRP was a security in 2013-2017, it’s insane to say that today’s token itself is a security.

For more on understanding the significance of the Fair Notice defense please see @CryptoLawUS’s recent video.
#xrpwins