Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

I agree w/ Jesse. If Judge Torres rules exactly the same as the @LBRYcom ruling, it would be game over in the U.S. until the 2nd Circuit overturned her (if it did) or, alternatively, the Supreme Court in 4-5 years. Like I said, the Ripple brief was written for the 2nd Circuit.

https://twitter.com/jesse_hynes/status/1590402900144291840

If @CryptoLawUS’s livestream was longer yesterday I would have explained the real danger to @Ripple is that the SEC doesn’t have to prove the actual sale of an unregistered security. It only has to prove Ripple made an “offering” of an unregistered security.

This is why it was so important for #XRPHolders to be involved as amicus. If Judge Torres agrees w/the Judge in LBRY and concludes that by owning billions of #XRP, ALONE, w/o any other statements by Ripple, constitutes an “offer”, she must address secondary market sales.

Some will say that she doesn’t have to address secondary market sales, but I’m confident she will.

I don’t think she will agree with the LBRY Judge for the reasons I addressed in the livestream.

But I seriously doubt that Judge Torres, after allowing us to participate for almost 2 years, would ignore secondary market transactions independent of Ripple. To do so would mean that she allowed us in as amicus, ruled that she desired to hear our perspective and then ignored us

I seriously doubt that she ignores 75K #XRPHolders, @TapJets, @Spend_The_Bits, #iRemit and the countries that have designated #XRP a non-security.

#XRPHolders amcius brief, along with the other amici, give her the ammo she needs to distinguish between Ripple sales and secondary market transactions.

But the LBRY decision demonstrates why it was absolutely necessary that we make our presence be known.