Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

Post by pcthrowaway » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 1:14 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #39

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

Post by trog » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 1:57 AM UTC

detroitcoder wrote: post #53

amluto wrote: post #13

This is IMO rather odd logic. I skimmed the opinion. If identical logic were applied to ordinary stock shares, it seems like it’s saying that shares in a C corp are securities if the C corp sells them to institutional investors, but that if the C corp sells the same shares by putting limit orders on a stock exchange (NASDAQ, for example) and Reddit-reading meme stock buyers buy them, then somehow the C corp didn’t ac…

I had a similar thought at first but then read the actual ruling and it made more sense and it all stems on the 3rd prong of the Howie Test. It states there needs to be a "reasonable expectation of profits derived from the managerial efforts of others" which a share of stock has via dividends, etc. regardless how it was acquired. For XRP, there is no explicit rights to profits via the efforts of others via the instru…

Post by jakelazaroff » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 3:37 AM UTC

scg wrote: post #67

jakelazaroff wrote: post #31

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

To the extent that the Rolex brand has a certain inertia that will propel it further even after the company ceases to exist, that inertia can be attributed to company's previous marketing efforts. Indeed, the brand may retain value for some time even if the company goes out of business, perhaps even for a very long time. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that ongoing marketing efforts can amplify the brand's…

Post by monero-xmr » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 4:13 AM UTC

ac29 wrote: post #72

DANmode wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you clarify your meaning here? Thanks!

You can invest your money in extremely safe US treasuries yielding >5% right now. If you instead choose to invest in something that doesn't generate any income, it needs to generate a return some other way or you are losing money compared to the do nothing option of investing in risk-free assets.

Post by yieldcrv » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 6:09 AM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #5

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #3

"partial" win!? It's hard to see what would be a "win" otherwise... It's going to have also larger implications - the SEC somehow manages to lose that one, it was hard to imagine or predict. If not even XRP is a security, there is truly no other coins which could be a security. Hate it or love it, but the SEC is simply going to lose all their other lawsuits EDIT: oh funny ... Reuters edited their title and removed "p…

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