Bill Hinman intentionally misled the public as Director of Corporation Finance while at the @SECGov.
Watch the 4 min @CNBC clip👇 and then read the brief 🧵 that follows.
On Dec. 13, 2017, Hinman had a meeting w/ @ethereumJoseph & @ConsenSys and lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell (Clayton’s law firm);
The next day, Dec. 14, 2017, @MattCorva of Consensys (w/ lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell) stated that they were building an alliance with the SEC;
Six weeks later, on Jan. 25, 2018, Clayton meets with Chris Dixon and Andreesen & Horowitz of @a16z and instructs him to put together a group w/in the industry and write up a memo. Perkins Coie, a member of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, led this group of #Ether investors;
On Mar. 26, 2018, Attorney Lowell Ness of Perkins Coie sent Hinman a Memo and Safe Harbor Proposal. The only Crypto asset mentioned in the Safe Harbor is #ETH;
Two days later, Mar. 28, 2018, #Ether investors meet secretly w/Hinman asking for a regulatory free pass from the SEC;
On April 23, 2018,
the SEC meets AGAIN with Lubin & Consensys.
On May 12, 2018, Lubin stated that he was:
“making great strides with regulators.”
On May 24, 2018, Lubin claimed he could issue tokens in ways detailed in Hinman’s speech - which hasn’t been delivered yet!
On June 8, 2018,
Consensys meets w/ the SEC AGAIN. Lubin commented how the market needed the SEC to scare some projects away.
SIX DAYS LATER, on June 14, 2018, Hinman gave his speech and declared that ongoing sales of #Ether were NOT in violation of U.S. securities laws. 🚀
Incredibly, he then goes on CNBC w/ @BobPisani and says “WE” (at the SEC):
“don’t see a 3rd party promoter when looking at #Ether.”
For that statement to be truthful, he must’ve been blindfolded during all his meetings w/ the co-founder of Ethereum and Founder of Consensys!
Hinman signed an affidavit stating the speech was his personal opinion only. B/c of this affidavit along w/ the SEC claiming its never taken a position on #ETH, the Judge ruled an email w/the draft, and any comments, are not protected under the DPP. The SEC’s objecting. Why? 👇👇
One question I get asked every time I’m on a podcast or being interviewed, is to provide an estimate of how long the @SECGov 🆚 @Ripple case will take to resolve either by settlement or by judgement.
If you’ve watched those interviews, you know I placed a lot of emphasis on the 👩⚖️ Judge’s DPP ruling.
I said if the Judge pierced the deliberative process privilege and ordered the SEC internal documents produced, we could see a settlement w/in 90 days thereof.
I also said if the Judge 👩⚖️ rules the documents don’t have to be produced to Ripple, I believe the case will go to Summary Judgement; and, possibly, a jury verdict.
The judge gave a mixed ruling. The SEC’s big victory is that most of the documents DO NOT have to be produced.
#XRPHolders shouldn’t allow detractors to create and push a sour grapes narrative. Under the law, selective enforcement claims do not win and are not very persuasive. Just b/c #ETH got a free pass related to it’s ICO, doesn’t make #XRP a non-security.
Just b/c an argument can be made that, today, the #XRPL is more decentralized than the #Ether network - doesn’t mean #XRP isn’t a security. I watch #XRP or @Ripple detractors attempting to create the sour grapes narrative.
When someone asks me why today’s #XRP is not a security, I do not discuss or bring up #Ether in the answer.
What our opponents are attempting to do is dismiss our argument as “you’re upset b/c someone else broke the law and didn’t get sued.”
@EleanorTerrett and I were discussing the Judge’s ruling today
b/c, as usual, her and @CGasparino seem to be the only journalists recognizing the magnitude of this case on the overall Digital Asset space. I re-read the decision and here are my final takeaways:
The June 13, 2018 legal memorandum 📝 regarding whether #XRP is a security (conducted by SEC legal staff) IS PRIVILEGED and will NOT be turned over.
But the Judge noted that the legal staff members who wrote this analysis:
“did not present a recommendation to the SEC.”
This finding is VERY significant. This means that after the SEC’s legal analysis, as of June 13, 2018, they did not recommend bringing an enforcement action against @Ripple@bgarlinghouse or @chrislarsensf regarding #XRP as a security.
I ask that only international holders use this petition option, and U.S. holders keep using the Connect to Congress app. This will maximize the power of both, and not dilute either.
1) an investment; 2) in a common enterprise; 3) with a reasonable expectation of profits; 4) from the efforts of others.
#XRPHolders use the token itself to stake #XRP for interest (profit) or as collateral for a fiat loan.
Factor #4 👎
If you acquired #XRP for non-investment reasons factors 1 & 2 are not satisfied. Time magazine accepts #XRP along with thousands of content or service providers (merchants, coil, tips). Non-profits accept #XRP as donations. Employees & Businesses use #XRP as payroll currency.
I know of #XRPHolders who acquired the minimum amount of XRP just to establish the trust line to send money abroad utilizing the #XRPLedger or the DEX. Their intent was to utilize XRP as a tool for its utility - as a bridge or transfer asset.
Many people, like Ian, believe @Ripple violated securities laws and should be sued by the SEC accordingly. Some believe that just b/c #Ether investors violated the law doesn’t excuse Ripple from it’s wrongdoing. Regardless of whether you agree, this is not an unreasonable stance.
What is unreasonable is the SEC abandoning all truth and law and arguing absurdly:
“the very nature of XRP in the market”
&
“the nature of XRP itself”
make all #XRP securities. Note the quotations. This language is directly from the Complaint filed against Ripple and #XRP.👇
Some people don’t know or refuse to accept that the @SECGov could’ve easily sued @Ripple@bgarlinghouse and @chrislarsensf to enforce securities laws w/o devastating #XRPHolders and making a complete mockery of 76 years of legal precedent while destroying the SEC’s credibility.