reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @ScamDetective5

ScamDetective5
Posted - June 13, 2023 at 10:29 PM
Saved - June 16, 2023 at 12:42 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Misinformation is circulating in the XRP community that the SEC declared XRP not a security. This is false. The statement is based on a flawed analysis by a law firm, not the SEC. The analysis was done based on public records and may require modification with additional information. Ripple did arrange for six exchanges to list XRP, paying $15 million in 2017, which contradicts the law firm's conclusion. This alters the reasonable grounds conclusion of the law firm.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

There is a lot of misinformation going around the #XRPcommunity claiming that the SEC said #XRP is not a security. This is FALSE. This statement is based on Exhibit 220 in the Hinman Doc drop. This Exhibit was written by a law firm to Grayscale regarding its XRP Investment Trust.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

Here is the document everyone is citing; we can see it is Document 831-79. We can also see in today's filings (Jun 13, 2023) that in filing 831, exhibit 220 is #79, thus it is Document 831-79.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

We can see this Exhibit 220 referenced in another document released today, under sections 1696 and 1698 to get the context on who it was To and From. We know it was a law firm (not the SEC) but it is unclear which firm and we can also conclude it was Grayscale that was redacted.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

Besides this NOT being an SEC internal communication, opinion or analysis in any way, shape or form, it is a flawed analysis by the law firm by their own admission.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

The analysis clearly states that it was done β€œbased on information that we have been able to obtain from public record” and if additional information exists their conclusion may require modification. In fact, there WAS additional information that affected their conclusion.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

One of the main reasons they gave for XRP not being promoted as an investment of money, was Ripple not arranging for secondary market trading of XRP, which would suggest that it was being sold as an investment (by the law firm’s own admission). This was FALSE.

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

We now know from the lawsuit that in FACT, Ripple did arrange for SIX exchanges to list XRP, paying between $1-$5 million dollars in 2017. This was before the law firm wrote this opinion but they did know about this since it was not PUBLIC information. So much for transparency!!

@ScamDetective5 - π•Ύπ–ˆπ–†π–’π–˜ π–†π–—π–Š 𝖇𝖆𝖉 πŸ— 91.22%

Obviously, this alters the "reasonable grounds" conclusion of the law firm. Of course, we all know the conclusion of what Grayscale and the law firm NOW think, based on the XRP Trust, it is now a tiny footnote in their Investor Pitch Deck. Let me zoom in on that for you.

View Full Interactive Feed