Libre Blockchain

Stop Over-Extrapolating the Ripple Ruling Bull run is coming. Stop over-extrapolating. Or, in other words, don’t be asinine enough to suggest that the intermediary ruling in SEC v. Ripple is some sort of catchall that exonerates every single crypto asset on every exchange. Don’t forget that $LBRY fought tooth and nail and lost. Also, don’t forget that Ripple’s been sitting on a multi-billion dollar warchest that’s afforded them the best lawyers in mankind to fight this case for them. Remember the CSW v David Klein case? SEC v Ripple has like 3-4x the # of docket entries to put things in perspective. There is some great news buried in that ruling that we’re going to cover in a second.

6, 5, 4, 3.5 old

Ripple Case is NOT Over Not trying to rain on any parades here - but the SEC v. Ripple case is not over. There was a lot of good news for Ripple that came from this ruling. 1. The fact that the programmatic sales were not deemed to be a securities offering means they should be able to continue to prop up their ecosystem, provide liquidity for markets and (most importantly) facilitate inter-exchange transfers. 2. Ripple will should still be able to coordinate with their 'partners' to have them 'test' new software implementations and iterations of the various networks that underpin the XRP token. 3. Much of the regulatory threat to Ripple has been mitigated. However, there was some bad news: 4. Ripple losing on the matter of institutional sales exposes them to potential civil penalties. However much they'll be forced to pay remains to be seen (amount depends on the final judgment). 5. This may embolden the SEC to pursue crypto firms that have conducted similar institutional-scale sales (assuming they were unregistered). Litigation against Ripple will continue as well. Overall Conclusion The ruling today helps Ripple by limiting the scope of any potential impending judgment/settlement. As of right now, the best case scenario for Ripple would probably be to simply settle any remaining matters with the SEC. Ripple is only exposed on institutional sales, but those sales were significant in value (>$760M+ in total). Not sure how this will impact what penalties they will face from the SEC. However, it seems like virtually all other sales are fair game. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, just someone that takes the time to read and do a little research. I've provided the actual court filing in this chat for you to view yourself if you wish to make your own assessment.

JUST IN: Ripple $XRP soars 30% after US judge rules it's not a security. @WatcherGuru

What are Programmatic, Institutional and 'Other' Sales? In order to assess the impact of this ruling, we need to pick apart the difference between these different types of sales. Programmatic Sales (Ruling = NOT a Security) Per the order, these are the characteristics of Ripple's programmatic sales (and reasons why they weren't considered to be a security offering): - They were made through trading algorithms - making them blind bid/asks - XRP did not know the identity of the buyers - Sales represented a fractional amount of trade volume - Buyers purchased the Ripple through the cryptocurrency exchange, not from Ripple "**Other Distributions**" (Ruling = NOT a Security) These sales are defined in the ruling as the following: 1. Distributions to employees as a form of compensation. 2. Distributions to 3rd parties through Ripple's Xpring program to 'incentivize developing new applications' for XRP and XRP Ledger technologies. Factors that the court considered here were: - Employees that received tokens didn't pay any money in exchange for said tokens. - No evidence Ripple profited from recipients' latter sale of XRP tokens. - SEC did not state explicitly that these were unlawful offerings to the public with recipients acting as underwriters. Institutional Sales (Ruling = This IS a Security) This was the only 'type' of XRP distribution that was ruled a security offering. The filing identified these sales as having the following characteristics: - Sales made directly by Ripple to buyers in accordance with negotiated contracts. - Buyers were 'sophisticated entities' like institutional investors and hedge funds (which makes you think that Ripple would have no problem clearing them as valid recipients even if these sales are considered to be a securities offering) - Sales raised $728M+ in total revenue for Ripple - The contracts governing the exchange of XRP tokens included provisions like lock-up periods and re-sale restrictions which, in the court's opinion, demonstrated that the $XRP tokens were being purchased for investment purposes - not as a currency. - Proceeds from the sales were pooled by Ripple to fund operations and promote ecosytem.

Here's the OG filing by the courts on the Ripple v. SEC matter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082.874.0_2.pdf ^^ You can check out the rest of the court docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19857399/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-ripple-labs-inc/?page=1 (most of the filings in the docket have been uploaded here for you to view for free)

U.S. Judge Has Ruled in the SEC v. Ripple Case Let me preface this by saying that the ruling here is on the motions for summary judgment by both Ripple and the SEC. There are some remaining issues that need to be settled and they will be litigated at trial. With that being said, there are some major updates in the SEC v. Ripple case. Outlining the Judge's Ruling in the SEC v. Ripple Case The court granted and denied both Ripple and the SEC's motions for summary judgment in the following ways: 1. Institutional Sales: The court finds these were investment contracts under Howey because buyers invested money, there was a common enterprise, and buyers expected profits from Ripple's efforts in promoting XRP. So Ripple's motion is denied and SEC's motion is granted for these sales. 2. Programmatic Sales: The court finds these were not investment contracts under Howey because buyers could not reasonably expect profits from Ripple's efforts. So Ripple's motion is granted and SEC's motion is denied for these sales. 3. Other Distributions: The court finds these were not investment contracts under Howey because no money was invested by recipients. So Ripple's motion is granted and SEC's motion is denied for these distributions. 4. Individual Sales by Larsen and Garlinghouse: The court finds these were not investment contracts under Howey for the same reasons as the Programmatic Sales. So Defendants' motion is granted and SEC's motion is denied for these sales. 5. The court agreed with Ripple's fair notice defense for Programmatic Sales, Other Distributions, and Individual Sales. 6. The court denied SEC's motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claims against Larsen and Garlinghouse, finding factual disputes remain. Conclusion The court granted partial summary judgment for both the SEC and Ripple (Defendants). Thus far, only Ripple's Institutional Sales of XRP are found to have violated securities laws.

JUST IN: Spot Bitcoin ETFs are unlikely to have a significant impact on crypto, JPMorgan says. @WatcherGuru

Binance Woes are NOT FUD Shit’s hitting the fan for Binance. Best we can hope for is that the exchange is able to unwind operations & dump enough market share to where it’s no longer as potentially impactful and damaging as it would be if they went underwater tomorrow. Unfortunately, they still hold a significant market share in this space. So their imminent demise could bring a lot of pain. However, the markets (overall) are bullish as all fuck.

Atm anything they just try to manufacture as fud to binance. And still market has not tanked alot .hope we see good run in 2024

BlackRock Re-Files ETF as Expected We anticipated this, of course (check the prior message here): https://www.reuters.com/technology/nasdaq-refiles-blackrocks-bitcoin-etf-application-with-sec-2023-07-03/ As stated before, the SEC’s response calling their filing “inadequate” was not a rejection. It was basically the equivalent of what happens when you go to pay for something online & you forget to enter your billing zip code. The transaction didn’t get declined. It was never attempted because you didn’t submit all the required info. Same thing happened here.

SEC Deeming the BTC Spot ETFs as "Inadequate" = No Big Deal This is not the same as an outright rejection. Read the article carefully and it tells you that, "The SEC told the exchanges that it returned the filings because they didn’t name the spot bitcoin exchange with which they are expected to have a “surveillance-sharing agreement” or provide enough information about the details of those surveillance arrangements. Asset managers can update the language and refile." The assumption here should be that BlackRock et. al., will merely revise and update their filings before resubmitting them to the SEC. Again, this is not a rejection. Its simply the SEC telling the asset managers that they need more information about this proposed 'surveillance-sharing agreement' before they can move the application to the next stage of the review process. Don't let headlines fuck you up. Always read between the lines.

WSJ = Source That SEC Filings are Inadequate They published an article earlier today titled, 'SEC Says Spot Bitcoin ETF Filings Are Inadequate', which you can find here. The article is behind a paywall, so I did y'all the favor of copying & pasting it to a viewable link here: https://telegra.ph/SEC-Says-Spot-Bitcoin-ETF-Filings-Are-Inadequate-06-30-3 ^^ (telegra.ph is operated by Telegram; its their throwaway version of Medium)

This is a “yikes” if true.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 SEC says spot Bitcoin ETF filings are inadequate. @WatcherGuru

FTX sues Dan Friedberg alleging he used ‘hush money’ to silence whistleblowers https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-sues-dan-friedberg-for-paying-off-whistleblowers

JUST IN: Binance US suspends all USD deposits following SEC lawsuit. @WatcherGuru

Catherine Coley Snitched on Binance to the SEC This is not a rumor or conjecture. There's a full transcript of her testimony that's been uploaded to the court docket by the SEC. In case you don't know, Catherine Coley was the former CEO of Binance.US. So...things are looking bad for them over there. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060.20.6_1.pdf