Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#31

Post by jakelazaroff »

dcolkitt wrote: post #28
modeless wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculative profit you hope to make on XRP is entirely reliant on the business of Ripple. They control and run and improve and promote the network, and without those efforts XRP would not have any hope of increasing in value at all. It's plain as day that people purchasing XRP rely on the efforts of Ripple the company for their expectation of profit, regardless of who they purchase the XRP from.

Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex. But if you don't have a formal contractual relationship with Rolex SA, then it's quite simply not an investment contract.

> Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex.

That is not at all true. Rolexes will continue to accrue value even (especially?) if the company goes out of business.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#32

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

dcolkitt wrote: post #28
modeless wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculative profit you hope to make on XRP is entirely reliant on the business of Ripple. They control and run and improve and promote the network, and without those efforts XRP would not have any hope of increasing in value at all. It's plain as day that people purchasing XRP rely on the efforts of Ripple the company for their expectation of profit, regardless of who they purchase the XRP from.

Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex. But if you don't have a formal contractual relationship with Rolex SA, then it's quite simply not an investment contract.

A Rolex is a tangible art object that also performs a useful function. If, on the other hand, the issuing company sold NFTs with no tangible, functional, or aesthetic component and somehow sold people on the idea Rolex the company was going to pump these otherwise useless bits and bytes to the moon, then you're actually talking about something analogous to crypto.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#33

Post by shrimpx »

The SEC should've left crypto alone. Instead of crypto getting destroyed by the SEC, now it looks like the SEC might get destroyed by the judicial branch if they choose to go up the chain with this case. This SCOTUS is massively unfavorable toward the executive making up rules to enforce, or taking liberties with interpreting standing law. If it gets there I imagine a 6-3 Alito opinion gutting the SEC's wiggle room in defining a 'security' and enforcement reach.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#34

Post by constantly »

shrimpx wrote: post #33

The SEC should've left crypto alone. Instead of crypto getting destroyed by the SEC, now it looks like the SEC might get destroyed by the judicial branch if they choose to go up the chain with this case. This SCOTUS is massively unfavorable toward the executive making up rules to enforce, or taking liberties with interpreting standing law. If it gets there I imagine a 6-3 Alito opinion gutting the SEC's wiggle room i…

And with the deep pockets of the crypto puppet masters and all the evidence coming out about the Justice’s susceptibility to taking as many “gifts” as they can get their hands on, that just further solidifies the pre-determined outcome.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#35

Post by gjsman-1000 »

dcolkitt wrote: post #27
linuxftw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only appellate courts and higher set precedent. This is one ruling by one judge, means nothing for other cases.

Should be noted this decision came from an Obama appointee judge in a fairly liberal district (SDNY). The Second Circuit is half Federalist Society judges, and six out of the nine SCOTUS justices have been on a consistent battle to roll back the power of the regulatory agencies. Pretty hard to see how the case becomes more favorable for the SEC on appeal.

Well, that's just fantastic for the SEC in their newly-launched battle against Coinbase. Good luck with that, Gensler.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#36

Post by shrimpx »

constantly wrote: post #34
shrimpx wrote: post #33

The SEC should've left crypto alone. Instead of crypto getting destroyed by the SEC, now it looks like the SEC might get destroyed by the judicial branch if they choose to go up the chain with this case. This SCOTUS is massively unfavorable toward the executive making up rules to enforce, or taking liberties with interpreting standing law. If it gets there I imagine a 6-3 Alito opinion gutting the SEC's wiggle room i…

And with the deep pockets of the crypto puppet masters and all the evidence coming out about the Justice’s susceptibility to taking as many “gifts” as they can get their hands on, that just further solidifies the pre-determined outcome.

The US has a standing doctrine called 'delegation', where the executive is allowed to make up rules and enforce them. The Federalist Society finds that doctrine to be unconstitutional and wants to chip away at it. All 6 conservative justices have ties to the Federalist Society, so it really doesn't require any lavish gifts in this case.

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#37

Post by WinstonSmith84 »

Psyonic wrote: post #21
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This could become much bigger if the SEC uses this enforcement as an example reference case for future actions against other token projects that followed a similar playbook over the past several years There is no other project, not even a close one, who sold tokens worth almost $1b rewarding their execs, while offering no value whatsoever. This is not a win for the SEC, this is the case they truly couldn't lose. Ye…

Didn't EOS sell $4B worth? https://decrypt.co/80144/4-4-billion-eos-token-raise-fueled-...

Fair enough, forgot about that one... At least for EOS, that's a blockchain, and the token has a utility unlike XRP. Also in defence to the EOS foundation, which to me acts in good faith, it's block.one (the company at the origin of EOS) which pocketed the whole $4b

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#39

Post by DennisP »

modeless wrote: post #6

> But Torres ruled Ripple's XRP sales on public cryptocurrency exchanges were not offers of securities under the law, because purchasers did not have a reasonable expectation of profit tied to Ripple's efforts. > Those sales were "blind bid/ask transactions," she said, where the buyers "could not have known if their payments of money went to Ripple, or any other seller of XRP." I bet this gets overturned on appeal. I…

The judge referenced the Howey case, saying that just because you have an investment contract involving an orange grove, that doesn't mean the orange grove itself is a security. A security is a contract, not just anything that people trade around in a speculative way.

William Hinman of the SEC said much the same thing in 2018: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

Re: Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

#40

Post by dcolkitt »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #32
dcolkitt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex. But if you don't have a formal contractual relationship with Rolex SA, then it's quite simply not an investment contract.

A Rolex is a tangible art object that also performs a useful function. If, on the other hand, the issuing company sold NFTs with no tangible, functional, or aesthetic component and somehow sold people on the idea Rolex the company was going to pump these otherwise useless bits and bytes to the moon, then you're actually talking about something analogous to crypto.

There's literally nothing in existing law that identifies tangibility as a specific criteria for what constitutes a security and what constitutes a commodity. In fact both the CFTC and SEC are specifically on record as saying Bitcoin constitutes a commodity. And obviously Bitcoin is as intangible as it gets.
Post reply on HN