I think it’s time to Connect to Congress again. The crypto industry is floating many proposals for clarifying the federal rules, but U.S. digital asset holders have a more fundamental question for our lawmakers. Let’s put them on the spot. (1/5)
(2/5)
The SEC is practicing regulation by enforcement, setting policy with lawsuits and picking winners and losers rather than leveling the playing field. It’s unclear for investors and unfair to everyone.
(3/5)
To do this, the SEC is relying on a 1940s court case to set crypto policy. This is like using horse & buggy rules to regulate jet planes. It makes no sense, and it needs a solution.
(4/5)
As a U.S. constituent, you should conclude by asking your lawmaker to respond to a simple question:
Do you think political appointees should be setting the rules on crypto, or should Congress write the rules?
(5/5)
Connect to Congress today, explain the problem this country is facing, and ask your lawmakers to respond to you with their answer.
Let’s get it on the record who is ready to do their job, and who isn’t. 👇
This meeting took place during the very height of the ICO prosecutions by the SEC.
We know for a fact that Ether held the world’s first ICO in 2014 - 3 years prior to the first Hinman meeting. We know that there were 3-4 more meetings before the Hinman Speech, including on June 8, 2018. We know Ether investors helped write ✍️ the speech (we have the videos).
We know on June 8, 2018, AFTER meeting the SEC, Joe Lubin PREDICTED that some projects were going to receive bad news from the SEC.
We know @Ripple was one of those “projects.” But a year before the SEC sued Ripple, it filed its most successful ICO enforcement action.
The following email and open letter was sent to @GaryGensler:
Dear Chairman Gensler,
My name is John Deaton and I am an attorney who represents over sixty-thousand XRP Holders. Judge Torres granted us amicus curiae status in the SEC versus Ripple case.
The SEC, under your predecessor, didn’t limit its allegations to only include sales of XRP made by Ripple. Incredibly, the SEC lawyers are alleging the token itself is a security per se. This argument is akin to claiming the oranges were the securities in the Howey case.
With all due respect, it’s an absurd claim and its caused significant damage to retail holders of XRP - many whom utilize the token as a transfer/bridge asset - not as an investment. Over one-half of all XRP Holders purchased XRP for the first time unaware of the company Ripple.
Despite @CGasparino being unbiased and giving Clayton the benefit of the doubt, Clayton has refused to speak to Gasparino and @EleanorTerrett regarding his decision to file the most significant enforcement action in recent history 🆚 @Ripple & #XRP - as he walked out the🚪
2/6
Instead, Clayton chose to go on air with @andrewrsorkin@BeckyQuick and @JoeSquawk. Andrew offered up a 🥎 question and asked Clayton if he wanted to address the serious conflicts of interests and gross appearances of impropriety that have been alleged against him.
3/6
Clayton stated he would not comment on the Ripple case. Regarding the conflicts of interest related to his current employers, Clayton incredibly said:
“I did not know these companies while I was in the government. I was introduced to them after I exited.”
MORE PROOF THAT THE SEC CASE 🆚 @Ripple IS DANGEROUS TO ALL CRYPTO: 👇
The above language is not John Deaton’s interpretation of the SEC’s Complaint. The above is from Judge Torres herself. She acknowledges that the SEC claims Ripple created the secondary market for #XRP - including all sales - whether between individuals or sold on exchanges.
Judge Torres recognizes the SEC’s claim that b/c Ripple undertook efforts to create a secondary market for XRP, that, therefore, ALL #XRPHolders must have entered into a common enterprise with Ripple - regardless of whether they acquired #XRP directly from Ripple.
The SEC repeatedly argues #XRP is a speculative investment. Yet, the very next line in Howey is:
“If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enter-prise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value.”
Howey was decided in 1946 so one might argue there’s no precedent related to cryptocurrencies. NOT TRUE.
In 2019, the federal court in the SDNY handed down the #Telegram case.
Telegram was a pure ICO and money was raised PRIOR to the blockchain technology being developed.
The SEC claims that today’s #XRP including the #XRP traded in the secondary market are all investment contracts with Ripple. 👇👇👇
Does the SEC truly believe that all #XRP are securities - even the XRP sold by exchanges independent of Ripple?
If it truly believed all #XRP are securities, why didn’t the SEC order @JedMcCaleb to cease and desist from selling his billions of #XRP?
Why didn’t it seek a preliminary injunction to stop Ripple from selling any of its billions of escrowed #XRP?
If all #XRP are securities - as alleged by the SEC - why didn’t it attempt to stop anyone who was paid millions or billions in XRP from selling once the case was filed?