Instead, you inflict the most damage possible against the competition by alleging all XRP are securities;
Even though you claim all XRP are securities w/o utility, you don’t seek an injunction like you have previously, b/c you know it will expedite the case and you will lose;
If all XRP are securities, as alleged, why has Ripple been allowed to continue to sell XRP - which includes selling XRP to pay legal fees to defend the lawsuit;
Why is the cofounder allowed to sell $2.6B worth of XRP since the lawsuit was filed (2x what the SEC seeks 🆚 Ripple);
After filing the most significant SEC enforcement action in modern history, the top people leave the SEC - the Chairman, the Director of Corporation Finance, and the Director of Enforcement;
Several weeks later, the Chairman goes to a $1B #BTC & #ETH fund;
The Director of Corporation Finance goes to the world’s largest $2.2B crypto fund led by the investors who helped ✍️ the ETH free pass speech;
The Enforcement Director goes to the law firm that promotes ALL enterprise applications be developed on the Ethereum Blockchain;
Later, we find out that the person who gave the regulatory free pass to Ether, was paid $15m, while at the SEC, from the same law firm that promotes ALL enterprise applications on the Ethereum Blockchain;
We find out this person didn’t actually ✍️ the free pass speech himself;
We learn Ether investors helped ✍️ the speech;
We learn the only SEC commissioner to read the speech before publishing is the Chairman, who’s law firm is representing the cofounder of Ethereum and founder of ConsenSys which just happened to buy Quorum - a competitor of Ripple;
We learn that Crypto-Mom, @HesterPeirce, who wrote and promoted a proposed SEC Safe Harbor Provision, wasn’t even included in the drafting of the free pass speech or in reviewing a Safe Harbor Proposal offered by the Ether investors; 🤔
We learn that two weeks before the lawsuit was filed, Clayton received a grave ⚠️ warning ⛔️ from a former SEC Chief who informed Clayton that no exigency existed that would justify filing a lawsuit as he walked out the door - less than 30 days from a new administration;
This former SEC Chief warned Clayton that innocent investors with no connection to Ripple would lose multiple billions of dollars;
He made clear that the SEC has made no material distinction between Ether and XRP and filing the case would call into question the SEC’s MOTIVE;
We know the SEC and the players involved have refused to answer any questions posed by @CGasparino@EleanorTerrett & @LizClaman all of whom have given them all the benefit of the doubt;
Incredibly, the only comment made was a self-serving denial of any conflicts of interests based on Clayton’s claim that he hadn’t met any of his post-SEC employers until after he left the SEC - a statement that is demonstrably FALSE.👇
There’s so much more but the above facts alone show that the filing of this lawsuit wasn’t about enforcing securities laws. If enforcing securities laws were the true motive then the allegations would’ve been tailored to specific sales by Ripple during specific transactions.
Former SEC Chief Joseph Grundfest stated himself that if Clayton and the SEC filed the case against Ripple AND XRP - considering it gave Ether a regulatory free pass - would “call into question the Commission’s exercise of discretion.”
That means THE MOTIVE behind the lawsuit!
During this case, SEC attorneys have argued the motive behind the filing of the lawsuit is irrelevant. Yet, before Deaton or @digitalassetbuy or others raised the issue of MOTIVE, Grundfest did.
61K #XRPHolders disagree motives’ irrelevant b/c the facts are indisputable.👇
The @SECGov’s argument that all XRP, even XRP traded in the secondary market, are unregistered securities, is simply unconscionable. #XRPHolders’ brief will include statements and admissions made by the SEC itself supporting #XRPHolders’ position.
For example, take the infamous Hinman Speech itself. Read what’s said almost immediately:
“To start, we should frame the question differently and focus not on the digital asset itself, but on the circumstances surrounding the digital asset and the manner in which it is sold.”
To start, he says don’t focus on the Token itself. He goes further:
“Returning to the ICOs I am seeing, strictly speaking, the token – or coin or whatever the digital information packet is called – all by itself is not a security, just as the orange groves in Howey were not.”
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.
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.
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.