Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

CLAYTON’S @WSJ OP-ED IS SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE

Clayton’s audacity is truly staggering. 🥴 As you read his @WSJ article consider the following:

1) Senator @MikeCrapo wrote a letter to both the OCC and to Clayton, while at the @SECGov, seeking clarity regarding Crypto PAYMENTS!

https://twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/1471623048323162113

Senator Crapo stated that the different government agencies needed clear rules that do not stifle American innovation.

2) Weeks prior to the SEC enforcement action against @Ripple, several U.S. Congressmen wrote a letter to the SEC asking for regulatory clarity.

3) The Washington Examiner
publicized an INVESTIGATIVE piece on the issue of the United States losing the Blockchain technology war to China because of enormous uncertainty and because Clayton and the SEC refused to provide the necessary clarity.

This article was published stating that cryptocurrency is at the forefront of not just finance but even NATIONAL SECURITY (what Clayton is now claiming).

4) The article stated the U.S. Intelligence Community was raising
concerns about the CCP influence over digital currencies.

The article was concerned about the CCP’s influence - AT THE SEC - under Clayton.

5) The Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, wrote a letter directed AT CLAYTON in EARLY NOV. 2020 stating “crypto & CBDCs are all being drawn into a multi-front global competition.”

He wrote that the competition was “against
Beijing for leadership of the world’s economy.”

Ratcliffe informed Clayton that industry leaders are worried that China was leaving the U.S. behind in the digital-currency race.

Ratcliffe pointed to concerns of the Intelligence Community over China’s sway over digital currencies because more than half of the world’s mining was located in China. He warned Clayton that the Chinese Government had created its own state-controlled digital currency.

Ratcliffe warned Clayton that China’s state controlled digital Yuan would make it tough for the U.S. based companies and innovators to compete. He offered to have intelligence officers brief Clayton on the issue.

6) Although Clayton is now writing an op-ed in the WSJ on the issue, he didn’t even personally respond to the Ratcliffe letter regarding the same concern. Instead, an SEC Spokesperson responded and said the following:

“Chairman Clayton is committed to restoring innovation in the Digital Assets and digital payments space consistent with US investor protection and anti-money laundering laws.”

How familiar does that sound? It’s as if @GaryGensler responded to the letter himself - today.

But why would Clayton and the SEC respond this way? Anti-money laundering? Really?
This was an unusually generic response to claims that the SEC was HELPING China win the blockchain crypto revolution! Clayton’s loyalty and patriotism was being questioned and he had no comment.

Also, sound familiar? His integrity and ethics have recently been questioned and he tells @BeckyQuick @andrewrsorkin @JoeSquawk @EleanorTerrett and @CGasparino,

“No comment.”

He claims he won’t comment on pending litigation. No case prevents anyone from defending his honor.

The Washington Examiner found this letter by the nation’s Top Spy Chief to signal a push to convince Clayton and the SEC to make it easier for U.S. owned
crypto companies to compete against those based in and controlled by China.

Ripple’s GC, @s_alderoty, was interviewed and discussed China’s influence over digital currencies. He said “the data doesn’t lie; the vast majority of #BTC’s network and infrastructure - chips, mining pools and software, are all located in China or created by Chinese companies.”

Alderoty continued:

“This is not decentralization. The CCP wields absolute control in China.”

Ripple’s GC’s remarks to The Examiner were extremely critical of Clayton.

Alderoty wrote in August 2020 that “the Chinese Gov’t subsidizes the vast amounts of energy needed to fuel #BTC and #ETH miners.” He stated that “65% of #Bitcoin mining is concentrated in China.”

Ripple’s GC publicly questioned whether the SEC and Clayton were really willing to allow China to win this new technological and economic Cold War and allow China to dictate important parts of a new global economic system.

The Examiner’s article concluded by taking a direct shot at Clayton. A Senior Intelligence officer told the Washington Examiner that:

“competing with China is a
serious enough challenge without U.S. Regulators GETTING IN THE WAY.”

Clayton is now making the same argument. 🤦

7) Senator @TomCottonAR sent Clayton a letter in July 2020 AFTER he sent his first letter to Clayton in December 2018. In both letters, Senator Cotton addresses digital currencies to ensure U.S. companies (ie Ripple) have a chance to compete.

Cotton’s second letter included Director Ratcliffe and White House NSA O’Brien and criticized how:

“So far, the SEC has concluded that only Chinese controlled #BTC & #ETH can be considered non-securities.”

Senator Cotton was making the same argument that Ripple and its executives were making for over two years prior to Cotton’s letter. That argument was that the SEC provided clarity for only #BTC & #ETH, but NOT #XRP.

Ripple’s argument that the SEC was favoring China over the U.S. was made by Congress, the NSA, the Media and at least two U.S. Senators.
And they all were directing their criticisms to one agency and its Chairman - Jay Clayton.

8) @HesterPeirce was also pleading w/ Clayton and her fellow Commissioners to help foster innovation by adopting a Safe Harbor for innovators. Crypto-Mom was calling for clarity and a Safe Harbor when Clayton had the three votes needed to enact it (him, Hester, and Elad Roisman).

9) Former SEC Chief Joseph Grundfest also pleaded with Clayton to do the right thing. Many are aware that Grundfest warned Clayton not to file the case against Ripple and #XRP because of the foreseeable devastating consequences, but he warned Clayton about so much more.

In addition to the billions in losses to innocent XRP holders, he wrote:

“National security considerations are also at stake.”

Clayton NOW argues national security concerns related to a regulatory approach.

Maybe he re-read all those letters sent to him when he was Chairman.