reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Belisarius2020

@Leerzeit - Mr. Huber🔥🦅🔥

Lol. Do you actually think if it really was deliberate, they would try to give Ethereum just "a little head start" than a monopoly Ethereum? So much risk just to go for the headstart? No you aim for the monopoly and end up with the headstart. 💯 https://t.co/yyfD3kwhJO

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

@Leerzeit Monopoly is not possible with a decentralised ecosystem like crypto. A head start was achievable and enough short term for a clique to make a fortune

@Leerzeit - Mr. Huber🔥🦅🔥

@Belisarius2020 Of course a regulatory monopoly is possible? Just because you can circumvent a monopoly doesn’t mean it's not possible. Just like TCP IP has a monopoly. https://t.co/XtrXYuVtrn

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

I am not sure to what comment of @JohnEDeaton1 you refer but there was a memo the court did not order to be disclosed in which the SEC considered the issue and I think I recall John saying that had they concluded XRP was a security the SEC would have disclosed it. https://t.co/SIahrjWMaF

@JohnEDeaton1 - John E Deaton

@Belisarius2020 To be clear, I didn’t say the memo concluded XRP is not a security. The memo was found to be privileged and not disclosed so I haven’t read exactly what it says. But Judge Netburn found it important to note that the authors of the memo, who were Enforcement lawyers at the SEC,…

@Marc_Fagel - Marc Fagel

@JohnEDeaton1 @Belisarius2020 With the caveat, again, that we don't know the state of the SEC's investigation at that time. Had they collected evidence of Ripple's representations and the other material included in the SJ motion? (Which isn't to say there isn't a major hurdle proving scienter by the indivs.)

@JohnEDeaton1 - John E Deaton

@Marc_Fagel @Belisarius2020 One of the lead prosecutors for the SEC stated in a memo or during oral argument (I can’t recall which) that by the time of the June 14, 2018 speech Garlinghouse and Ripple were aware of the SEC’s investigation. The SEC attorney stated this to minimize Ripple’s reliance on the…

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

The more I read the Torres decision the more I struggle to see the error. The source of the error cannot be the different treatment of the 3 categories of sales. As Torres J. noted it was the SEC who categorised these three types of sales./1 https://t.co/cchLpSt1y2

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

The judge referred to the SEC’s Reply at pages 4-5 in which it alleges Ripple engaged in three categories of XRP sales and offers /2 https://t.co/uvmjm7fBWS

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

It was not the Judge who came up with these three categories, it was the SEC. It did so because the types of sales were very different from each other in critical respects /3

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

The judge decided to separately analyse and evaluate each of the SEC’s three categories and referred to an authority: Marine Bank at 456, n.11 /4 https://t.co/UUmteUNxJ6

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

Here is an extract of n. 11 from the Marine Bank case. Each transaction must be analysed and evaluated on the basis of the instrument in question, the purposes intended and the factual setting as a whole /5 https://t.co/5JwokqhmoY

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

Hard to see error in the Judge’s approach in being efficient and analysing and evaluating the transactions in question by reference to the very categories urged on her by the SEC itself. Very fair to the SEC. /6

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

When she followed this approach and evaluated the three categories she found significant differences in the factual setting. One significant difference is that institutional buyers signed contracts with Ripple. Buyers from programmatic sales did not /7

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

Another difference is that Ripple did not know who were buyers and the buyers did not know Ripple was the seller in programmatic sales. Programmatic buyers did not know to whom they were paying their money. /8

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

Further the judge found that the evidence did not establish that Ripple made promises to programmatic buyers and that the evidence did not show programmatic buyers expected profits from Ripple’s efforts rather than other factors /9

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

In short, the judge recognised that the ‘factual setting as a whole’ between institutional sales and programmatic sales was very different. Further her reasoning shows that a reasonable investor in the position of institutional buyers was in a different situation than /10 https://t.co/PxsakltGor

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

the reasonable investor in the position of a programmatic buyer. The factual setting made this finding inevitable. The legal creation known as the objective reasonable investor still inhabits in each legal case a landscape of actual facts /11

@Belisarius2020 - bill morgan

In this case the reasonable investor had different expectations in the very different set of facts in the different categories of Ripple sales and offers the SEC formulated. I don’t see any error in the judge’s reasoning . Sad ha for the SEC /12 @CGasparino