5 ms·
The parent of the comment you’re replying to literally cites a case where they were deemed to be wrong.
by null0pointer 3y ago
The parent of the comment you’re replying to literally cites a case where they were deemed to be wrong.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt looks a bit more nuanced than that. Torres is the judge in the XRP case. From the article: ——- Torres, who is based in New York, on Thursday said the company's $728.9 million of XRP sales to hedge funds and other sophisticated buyers amounted to unregistered sales of securities. But Torres ruled that 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, in which the buyers "could not have known if their payments of money went to Ripple, or any other seller of XRP." ——- So it seems XRP was deemed a security just the sales on public exchanges weren’t a securities offering? A bit confusing IMO.
- DennisP 3y agoFrom reading over the decision, the judge emphasizes that a security is an investment contract. The institutional investors and Ripple formed a contract, in which the investors were promised that Ripple would do various things in exchange for the investment. On the secondary markets, people were just speculating on the token price going up or down. They weren't getting any promises from Ripple, or even necessarily giving money to Ripple, so there was no contract. If there's no contract, there's no security. Just speculating on the price of something doesn't turn that thing into a security.
- null0pointer 3y agoThanks for the clarification.