I have a question for @BrianBrooksUS. As OCC, you stated that there are too many agencies in finance and banking in the U.S. In an interview, you openly questioned: “Do we think it’s best for the Government to build a CBDC or utilize the private sector, which is already built?”
I believe, when you said that, you were referencing, at least in part, #XRP and the #XRPLedger. I say that b/c you stated the technology to build a CBDC was “already built”, but the only issue was with a lack of regulatory clarity. You definitely weren’t referencing #BTC or #ETH.
It wasn’t #BTC or #ETH b/c when you made this statement they enjoyed regulatory clarity by being declared non-securities by the SEC’s leadership plus those two digital assets weren’t associated with payments.
Additionally, you had previously stated that the industry needed to know whether the SEC thinks #XRP is a security. Plus, after Hinman’s speech, the SEC was constantly asked “What about #XRP?”
My question is when you made that comment about CBDCs, were you thinking of #XRP specifically, or crypto assets in general?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge Netburn recognized the SEC’s over-broad and far-reaching theory that all XRP are securities when she recognized, according to the SEC’s own argument, that every person in the world selling #XRP is committing a Section 5 violation.
Read the SEC’s response back to her.👇
The SEC attorney informed the Judge that her understanding wasn’t correct. It was this statement by the SEC attorney that helped fuel the relist #XRP campaign.
But read @bgarlinghouse’s attorney’s response regarding this same issue.👇
“Contrary to what Mr. Tenreiro said, not just Ripple, not just Ripple’s affiliates, but any retail holder or any party IF THERE IS ANY INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE the security further. So it is not correct to say, that there is no potential liability throughout the XRP ecosystem.”
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);
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.