Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

@HesterPeirce has a tough and frustrating job. I get now exactly what she meant when she told @ThinkingCrypto1 that she spends some of her time trying to get her colleagues at the SEC to STOP viewing the token as the security. Read the comment below. 👇

https://twitter.com/XRPCryptoQuebec/status/1522723609214693377

“Something can transform from a security to a non-security.”

Although not incorrect, it is not the proper way to evaluate investment contracts. Any commodity or asset can be offered as a security. There was a case where #BTC was declared a security b/c of how it was offered.

Stanford Law Professor Joseph Grundfest in the video below in 2015 says sometimes #BTC is a security and sometimes it is not.
The fundamental concept seems to be lost on the SEC. they focus on the underlying asset too much. It’s intellectually lazy.

When I filed the Writ of Mandamus and the Motion to Intervene, all the SEC had to do was stipulate or declare to the judge, that the SEC was not arguing #XRP itself is a security. If they would have stated that, the judge would have denied #XRPHolders amicus status.

For those that doubt what I’m saying, pull @Ripple’s Response to my motion to intervene. Ripple told the judge if the SEC stipulates that it is only alleging #XRP is a security when and how Ripple sells it, then #XRPHolders have no input and the judge should deny our motion.

Ripple argued, however, if the SEC was in fact arguing all #XRP, including #XRP traded in the secondary market independent of Ripple, is also a security, #XRPHolders have a lot to say and we should be granted amicus.

And here we are with the SEC arguing XRP itself is a security