TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @attorneyjeremy1

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - March 8, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Saved - March 8, 2025 at 3:55 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The U.S. Office of the Comptroller has just issued an interpretive letter that allows banks to use distributed ledgers and stablecoins for banking activities, confirming that banks can validate and record transactions as nodes on an INVN. This marks a significant shift, as the language from a previous letter in 2021 was rescinded and has now been reinstated. It feels like the bankers are experiencing some serious whiplash with these changes.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The U.S. Office of the Comptroller just released an interpretive letter Explicitly allowing banks to use distributed ledgers/stablecoins for banking activities: "We therefore conclude that a bank may validate, store, and record payments transactions by serving as a node on an INVN. Likewise, a bank may use INVNs and related stablecoins to carry out other permissible payment activities." GREEN LIGHT! https://occ.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/interpretations-and-actions/2025/int1183.pdf

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

To clarify: the language I'm quoting here is from a letter back in 2021 which was basically rescinded a year later and has now been unrescinded as of today (which is the link). The poor bankers are getting whiplash.

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - January 15, 2024 at 5:12 PM
Saved - January 16, 2024 at 3:09 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The SEC v. Coinbase motion to dismiss hearing is approaching. Motions to dismiss are rarely granted, but a prior case involving Uniswap gives hope. The judge dismissed a lawsuit against Uniswap, considering its decentralized nature. There are a couple of favorable points in the judge's order for Coinbase. Firstly, she refers to Ether as a "crypto commodity," indicating her understanding of the distinction between securities and commodities. Secondly, she acknowledges that Congress and the courts have not determined whether crypto tokens are securities or commodities, aligning with Coinbase's argument. Given the judge's previous dismissal and understanding of the technology, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The SEC v. Coinbase BIG motion to dismiss hearing is Wednesday morning. @MetaLawMan will be there live! Motions to Dismiss are rarely granted so I wasn't expecting much. HOWEVER, I just looked at a prior Order on a motion to dismiss from the same Judge on a crypto case and...

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

This might be closer than I originally thought. Back in August 2023 the Coinbase judge dismissed a lawsuit against Uniswap for sale of "scam tokens." Admittedly the decentralized nature of the exchange played a large role (which we don't have in the Coinbase case). BUT... https://t.co/ZYnIB5AUzJ

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

There are a couple important things the Judge stated in her Order that Coinbase have got to like. First, she calls Ether a "crypto commodity." Could that just be lazy writing? Possibly, but the Judge was very aware of the difference between a security/commodity so, I doubt it. https://t.co/LT3UqIceb1

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Second, the Judge states that "Congress and the courts" haven't made a determination whether crypto tokens are securities or commodities. This plays well with Coinbase's argument that the SEC is overstepping its enforcement authority and that Congress must be involved first. https://t.co/wmYWXtG5w6

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Based on this Judge's prior dismissal of the Uniswap case, her clear understanding of the technology, her finding that Eth is a commodity, and acknowledgement that Congress should be involved in this process... I'll be very interested to see how this plays out!

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - November 7, 2023 at 3:48 PM
Saved - December 23, 2023 at 6:41 PM

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Since @digitalassetbuy has been unjustly banned from X without due process, let me ask you to go give his latest YouTube video a watch to support him. Free DAI! https://youtu.be/uUvuugqycdY?si=2QPIGvXCLE2fRjuJ

Video Not Available youtube.com
attorneyjeremy1
Posted - November 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM
Saved - November 18, 2023 at 8:56 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The SEC's response to questions about crypto regulation is deceptive. They rely on the Howey test, which has been the law since 1946. However, applying this test to crypto projects is uncertain and guesswork. The SEC should interpret the laws for new technology instead of just saying "Howey is clear." Their lack of guidance leads to uneven enforcement and confusion. It's like receiving a pamphlet on how to look like Brad Pitt without any real help. This approach needs improvement to ensure fair and clear regulations.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The SEC's pat answer when asked hard questions about crypto regulation is deceptive. It always starts with "The Howey test is clear..., it's been the law since 1946..." Like most pat answers, it's superficial and based on half-truths. ๐Ÿ•๐Ÿงต

@707_crypto - 707Crypto

Director of the #SEC was asked - What is the current thinking of the #SEC in light of the recent court decisions in the #SEC vs @Ripple case? https://t.co/xC0yaZRwWx

Video Transcript AI Summary
The SEC's current thinking on recent court decisions regarding XRP by Ripple Labs is unclear. Judge Torres in the Southern District of New York considered XRP sales to institutional investors as securities because they were directly negotiated with the understanding of reinvesting proceeds. However, sales to the public over crypto exchanges were not considered securities as investors did not buy from Ripple and were not influenced by marketing campaigns. On the other hand, Judge Rakoff argued that there should be no distinction based on the type of investor. The SEC considers factors like the Howey test to determine if something is a security in the crypto space. The label given to an investment does not determine its security status.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I wanted to ask you what is the current thinking from the SEC in light of recent court decisions. But for the benefit of our readers, let me summarize, the misalignment as best as I can. So, as you know, Judge Torres in the Southern District of New York considered XRP by Ripple Labs, and found that the sales of tokens to institutional investors were actually securities securities because they were directly negotiated, with the understanding that proceeds from, these sales will be reinvested into the enterprise. Obviously, these were exempt transactions, but, the the threshold question was that that that contract involved a security. But on the other hand, she found that sales to the public in anonymous transactions over crypto exchanges. These were not securities because investors do not buy from Ripple, and they were not responding to any marketing campaign. So that what judge Torres, found. On the other hand, Judge Rakoff, did not fall in line with that reading, and he argued that no such distinction can arise because if there's a public campaign for the tokens, it was no distinction on whether, it is, on the type of register, institutional retail. So I I know you cannot comment on current cases, but I was hoping you could Spand's of the factors the SEC considers when it approaches this question. Speaker 1: Sure. I mean, you're you're right. I can't comment on pending litigation, and and there is a lot of pending litigation right now. But I think there there's not a lawyer In the room that you're in, or a lawyer that practices in this space or a court that really struggles to find the framework that we use to determine whether or not something what constitutes a security in this space. In this case, in the crypto space, all the attorneys in this room, all the attorneys counseling crypto issuers, look to the Howey test. And Howey, you know, based on the seminal Supreme Court case from 1946 and decades of case law SIN defines what or gives us a framework of determining what constitutes an investment contract and therefore a security under the federal securities laws. And and that's really the point of how we whether or not something is a security Doesn't depend on the label you give it. It doesn't depend

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Yes, on your first day of law school, you learn that most legal tests are based on "elements" such as is found in the Howey test for whether an asset is sold as a security. Eg., The test for whether you've formed a contract with someone requires you look at 3-5 "elements." https://t.co/yq4tDWv7PX

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

These tests allow for flexibility in approach and are guided by case law that is built around an articulated test. But WITHIN these elements are all sorts of room for disagreement and litigation. This is both the key feature and weakness of the common law approach. https://t.co/z2TB404PRY

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

In the context of a contract dispute or auto accident, the tests work fine (in my opinion). There has been a problem, a dispute that needs to be resolved, and the elements of the legal test provide a framework for an analysis and resolution. This is NOT the case with crypto.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The problem is that the common law framework/analysis which works good for disputes, is HORRIBLE for compliance - especially when dealing with areas where there is little/no case authority. Trying to apply the Howey "elements" to various crypto projects is a crapshoot. https://t.co/zElJOKUMwB

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

This is where the SEC is disingenuous. When confronted with a nuanced opinion from one Judge and the almost opposite opinion from another judge, the SEC can only say "all attorneys know what the elements are." "It's clear." That has an element of truth followed by a lot of lie.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Yes, any lawyer who reads Howey can rattle off the elements, but APPLYING them to a crypto project with a unique token model is just educated guesswork. And that's where you would hope that the SEC would do its mandated job and interpret the law, make it clear what is allowed.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

But, the guidance from the previous SEC administration was superficial, and even contradictory. And this SEC seems to have abdicated the "interpretation" part of its mandate and instead is focusing on "enforcement" (and how much $ it brings in every year per its latest video). https://t.co/H9A9hmEDVf

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

For whatever reason, this SEC has decided to only respond "Howey is clear" instead of interpreting the laws for a new technology. This allows, even incentivizes, uneven and capricious enforcement of the laws. And although the "test" is clear, the application is anything but.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

It's like you go to the gym and say you want to look like Brad Pitt in FightClub and the gym owner gives you a pamphlet outlining how fat is burned and how muscles grow and then says "good luck." Yes, it's clear how to look like Brad Pitt, but the pamphlet is hardly any help. https://t.co/U9Ns10KPi9

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

And by the way, when you fail to look like Brad later that year, you get kicked out of the gym. And sued. And yes, this thread was inspired by me feeling old and soft today. Excuse me while I go exercise a little. If I stay old and soft, I hope no one sues me.

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - November 10, 2023 at 12:42 AM
Saved - November 10, 2023 at 2:31 AM

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

I finished John's book, and it was A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.. I gained a lot of insight into the man with the bravery to jump into a Billion dollar case. Enjoy this completely candid and impromptu pic of me finishing the book! https://t.co/hw56MPjvaM

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - October 28, 2023 at 12:09 AM
Saved - October 28, 2023 at 12:16 AM

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

John's book is exactly what I expected from his legal work: Direct and Brutally Honest. https://t.co/jipYRil6CK

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - October 26, 2023 at 3:40 PM
Saved - October 26, 2023 at 3:46 PM

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Mission Impossible: Integrate the Legal System and Web3. Mission accepted by @JuratNetwork and my (new) attorney friend @MikeKanovitz. Check out what they are doing. This message will self-destruct in 3, 2, 1...

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - October 21, 2023 at 6:26 PM
Saved - October 21, 2023 at 8:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Ripple v. SEC case is essentially over. Important hearings will be held, but no trial is expected. A final judgment will likely be issued next year, causing Ripple to worry. Settlement is possible before the judgment. If appealed, statistics show the SEC has a 14.2% chance of winning. The judge's fact-based opinion doesn't favor the SEC. If the appellate court sides with the SEC, the case goes back to the trial judge for further determinations. The judge's rulings on other issues could potentially favor Ripple. The SEC would need to win multiple appeals to secure a victory. Various factors could impact the case's outcome. In summary, the case may drag on for a while, even after the main issues are settled.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

"For all Intents and Purposes" the Ripple v. SEC case is over. Yes, important hearings will be held in the coming months (deciding a judgment of up to $770 million is of course important). But, YOUR time for hand wringing over this case is done. IMO. ๐Ÿฉณ๐Ÿงต

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The SEC dismissed the rest of the case, so there will be no trial next year. The facts have been set - nothing new or surprising will be coming out. Which means the Court will be issuing a Final Judgment (probably) sometime next year. Only Ripple needs to worry about that. ๐Ÿ˜›

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The case could of course settle any time before the Final Judgment is entered. That's one possibility. If not, both the SEC and Ripple can file appeals. The SEC has indicated that it will appeal - fair enough. So, statistically, what are the chances of winning on appeal? โ“โ“

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Luckily, we have statistics which tell us! As you see below, the SEC has a 14.2% chance of winning on appeal. 14.2%. And I think it's fair to say that the manner in which the Judge wrote her opinion (very fact based), at a minimum, does not increase that chance for the SEC. https://t.co/LTsOU5eEgE

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

And so, what happens if the SEC appeals next year and the Appellate court sides with it in 2025? Because of the way the Judge wrote her Order, the Appellate court would have to send the case back down to the trial Judge for FURTHER judicial findings and determinations! Read on.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

As to "other distributions" of XRP, you can see in FN 18 that the Judge did not make findings as to the 2nd & 3rd prongs of Howey. ONLY the trial judge can do that. What would the Judge rule? Who knows. ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ But you'd have to think there's a CHANCE she would rule for Ripple. https://t.co/ZzmOPMl5Kf

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Same thing with Programmatic sales. IF the Appellate court agrees with the SEC, it would still have to send that issue back down to the trial court for further determinations. FN 20 (for example) suggests that the Judge is given some credence to Ripple's Fair Notice Defense. https://t.co/KcTooYyynN

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

And THEN, after the Judge makes a 2nd round of judicial determinations, it can then be appealed again up to the Appellate court (now with all issues ruled on). And only then could the SEC win on appeal and leave with a Victory! โœŒ๏ธ Unless Ripple appeals to the Sup Court... ๐Ÿ˜›

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

SO, the SEC has to: 1. Not Settle 2. Win on Appeal (14% chance) 3. Get through more hearings 4. Win on another Appeal. Or something like that. And that's not even taking into account a possible Act of Congress, a change of political Regime, or something else I can't think of.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

SO, that's why I say that "for all Intents and Purposes" this case is over. Unlike on TV, a lot of legal cases end with a whimper and drag on for a year after the main issues have been locked in. And I think that's what we will see here. PS. I just learned about Emojis! ๐Ÿ’ก๐Ÿ™‚

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - October 8, 2023 at 2:56 PM
Saved - October 8, 2023 at 5:46 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In the Ripple v. SEC case, the Judge denied an interlocutory appeal, leaving the SEC with limited options. Possibility #1: SEC goes to trial against individual Defendants, risking a loss and public scrutiny. An appeal won't be filed until 2025, with a final resolution likely in 2027. Possibility #2: SEC settles with individuals, reaching an appellate court faster. Remedies litigation would still take until 2026. Option #3: SEC settles all litigation, but they've shown little desire to compromise. Lastly, there's a small chance of an unforeseen outcome. The Summary Judgment stands until at least 2026.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

I'm seeing some confusion as to what could happen next in the Ripple v. SEC case now that the Judge denied an interlocutory appeal. Sooo, I have outlined every possibility and provided the exact chance of each possibility happening and how long each would take. Exactly. 1/356 https://t.co/LfOi2xEsLa

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

OVERVIEW: The Judge issued a "Summary Judgment" and denied an (early) appeal. The SEC has a 100% right to appeal when the whole case is finished and that will happen when there is a "Final Judgment." As you will see, the SEC has no real good options.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Possibility #1: The SEC moves forward with trial next April against the individual Defendants. Chance: 39.456% The Judge has left only the hardest part of the case for trial. The SEC could easily take an "L" at trial and have some of its dirty laundry aired at the same time.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

If the SEC goes to trial, an appeal of the case won't be filed until 2025. That means an appellate ruling likely won't come out until 2026. THEN, even IF the SEC wins on appeal, the case would most likely be remanded back to Judge Torres for further litigation (see attached). https://t.co/aZQwQSieIv

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

So, the SEC wants to push the entire case to trial and then appeal the parts of the judgment against Ripple it doesn't like? Fair enough, but the most likely outcome in that situation is a final resolution in 2027. June 14, 2027 to be exact. Good luck with that.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Possibility #2: The SEC could settle the case against the individual Defendants and move forward with obtaining a Final Judgment against Ripple, and then appeal. Chance: 32.113% This is the SEC's best option. For that reason, I doubt they do it.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Settling out the individual Defendants gets the SEC to an appellate court about 9-12 months faster and saves its resources (and face) by bypassing a very difficult and overreaching case. After settlement of the individuals, the case would go straight to "remedies" litigation. https://t.co/txpOztVog1

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Remedies litigation still would require months and months to complete (which was part of the SEC's argument as to why it needed an early appeal). This option would still go deep into 2026. August 14, 2026, to be exact. https://t.co/8DH3HQyZBk

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Option #3: The SEC settles all litigation against Ripple and the individual Defendants. Yes, this could happen at a settlement conference (such as the Judge required below) but the SEC has shown very little desire to compromise thus far. https://t.co/QjNeKfw9vA

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Settlement is a good option for the SEC. It gets to publish another "win" and collect a big big check from the bad guys. The Judge cleared this path for them by clarifying that her ruling only applies to the facts specific to XRP. Chance of happening: 18.987% Date: 12/21/23

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

Finally, something else I haven't thought of could happen. Who knows. Chance of happening: 8.675% As you can see, the SEC has a couple of bad/lengthy options. Meanwhile, the Summary Judgment is the law of the land and that can't even possibly change until...2026 at earliest. https://t.co/mn8TFGRTE7

attorneyjeremy1
Posted - October 4, 2023 at 12:02 AM
Saved - October 4, 2023 at 12:37 AM

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

The SEC's motion for interlocutory appeal DENIED. Which means, the case either goes to trial in April, or goes away. AND, this Order allowed the Judge to explain parts of her ruling even better, making appeal that much harder for the SEC to win. Disaster for the agency.

@FilanLaw - James K. Filan ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP BREAKING: Judge Torres has DENIED the SECโ€™s Motion to File an Interlocutory Appeal. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a1zks8vhptcf40vo6a7gc/Order-Denying-SEC-Motion-to-File-Interlocutory-Appeal.pdf?rlkey=v1gdwavgqwzi0bnxmmpqe0kgl&dl=0

Order Denying SEC Motion to File Interlocutory Appeal.pdf Shared with Dropbox dropbox.com
attorneyjeremy1
Posted - July 31, 2023 at 9:34 PM
Saved - August 1, 2023 at 1:43 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Numerous XRP purchasers claim they didn't know about Ripple when they bought, emphasizing the importance of evidence in the ongoing litigation. However, others argue that Ripple's actions, including holding a large number of tokens, indicate a motive to manipulate the market. The conversation also touches on various opinions about Ripple, XRP dumping, and the behavior of Bitcoin maximalists.

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

What the Terra Judge doesn't know is that numerous XRP purchasers submitted unopposed affidavits that they didn't even know who or what Ripple was when they bought. That's why EVIDENCE matters. And there's no evidence in this case, yet. https://coindesk.com/policy/2023/07/31/judge-rejects-ripple-ruling-precedent-in-denying-terraform-labs-motion-to-dismiss-sec-lawsuit/ via @coindesk

Judge Rejects Ripple Ruling Precedent in Denying Terraform Labs' Motion to Dismiss SEC Lawsuit Terraform Labs argued that there was no contract in the sale of UST to retail investors. coindesk.com

@coryklippsten - Cory Klippsten | Swan.com ๐Ÿฆข #Bitcoin

@attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Doesn't matter how many didn't know. Millions DID know that Ripple printed XRP and sat on a massive pile of tokens and thus had the incentive to pump their bags with fake partnerships and press releases. And YOU know this too, Jeremy. Sold your soul for some shitcoins ๐Ÿ’ฉ

@attorneyjeremy1 - Jeremy Hogan

@coryklippsten @CoinDesk It has nothing to do with what you or I know. It's only what the evidence is. This is litigation.

@MotownCrypto - Motown Crypto

@attorneyjeremy1 @coryklippsten @CoinDesk Burn those maxi pads

@Zer0LM - ZeroLatencyManifestation โ˜€๏ธ

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk @reseeit save thread

@GOLDCOUNCIL - World Gold Council

Agile and liquid. A proven protector. Anโ€ฏever-evolving enabler of bold decisions.

@X__Anderson - Anders ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk

@Smity_crypto - Smity

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk This is true @Ripple is dumping #xrp at the highest rate to date...

@curbmanjess - Jess

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Securities on the exchanges have this contract established already With their registration with the exchange to sell their securities to the public that's completely different from coinbase ..coinbase doesn't have established criterias with ripped and what they will do for buyers

@SettinoAlex - Alex Settino

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk You, sir, truly don't get it. I wonder what color the sky is in your world.

@jredbokieee - 1:1

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk You people are insufferable.

@OhtaniMVP2021 - Unanimous MVP

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Itโ€™s amazing how much they fear XRP.

@Tim_XRP - Tim (Faith over fear) XRP

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Where do these maxis come from? Is there like a portal that opened to another dimension where being luddite is heralded as an accomplishment?

@curbmanjess - Jess

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Hey Cory how does who knows of ripple have to do with a investment contract and efforts Soley from ripple from the Howey test plz explain? How can u just buy something like a crypto and have an investment contract ...what's in your contract ..what's in mine .. common man

@alfacryptomeo - Brett colman

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Coming from a crookโ€ฆ bore off Cory you bell end

@Ailujxrp - Ailuj

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk lol.. it wasn't Ripple who issued the tokens..

@GenslerResign - XRP Slippin Jimmy ICE 9 ๐Ÿดโ€โ˜ ๏ธ

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk

@WhittWhitaker - Whitt Whitaker

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Probably should worry more about your scam their buddy

@FeelinTheDrops - ๐• Jovem Dinheiro ๐Ÿ’ต ๐•

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Cope harder ๐ŸŒฝ โšฝ๏ธ

@mreinvest - David Landau

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•

@96Citadeldawg - Top water assassin

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Says the guy with bitcoin in his bio

@cryptoguy2188 - crypto guy (๐Ÿ’™,๐Ÿงก)

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk are you still not allowing people to withdraw their btc on your exchange?

@CMSPh_2010 - CMS

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Oh man, is there an end to the self-righteous Bitcoin maximalist? My whole thing is, if you and your radical ilk didn't feel threatened by the wider crypto market, you'd be spending your time elsewhere. You are afraid, that much is clear, or else XRP wouldn't matter to you.

@CirroEnergyTX - Cirro Energy

Sign up for Smart Simple Select and get a low, fixed price with no hidden fees โ€” plus a $100 bill credit.

@jredbokieee - 1:1

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk Here Stu will explain it to you like youโ€™re 5. https://t.co/7ElHFxHuZ2

@s_alderoty - Stuart Alderoty

Welcome to Oฬตfฬตfฬตiฬตcฬตeฬต After Hours with me! Letโ€™s clear up this confusion about securities, investment contracts and digital assets.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Digital assets, such as orange groves, whiskey barrels, pay phones, and beavers, can be packaged into investment contracts that may be considered securities. A share of stock is always a security because it holds Apple accountable for fulfilling fiduciary duties. Investment contracts, on the other hand, are promises to increase the value of an investment. For example, selling orange groves alone is not an investment contract, but selling them with a promise to cultivate and distribute profits is. Digital tokens, by themselves, are not investment contracts but can be used as virtual currency or commodities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) only has jurisdiction over securities, not other assets, and pretending otherwise is a political power play that harms everyone.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do digital assets have to do with orange groves, barrels filled with whiskey, pay phones, who remembers those? And beavers? Well, it turns out a lot. None of those things, standing alone, are securities, but Any one of them can be packaged into a contract for an investment that may be a security. Let me break this down a bit. The law lists a bunch of things that are securities. That list includes things you ordinarily think of, like a share of stock. Why is the share of stock always a security? If you own a share of stock in, let's say, Apple, Apple owes you a fiduciary duty. And you can hold Apple accountable if they don't fulfill those obligations. That's true no matter how you bought the stock or who sold it to you. But the law also includes something called an investment contract in the list of things considered a security. An investment contract is not like a traditional share of stock. And anyone who tells you that, Well, let's just say they're trying to confuse you. Investment contracts are contracts that I sell to you with the promise that I'm going to take the money you gave me and do things to increase the value of your investment. I can take a bunch of orange groves and sell those to you. That's not an investment contract. Or I can sell you some of those orange groves as Part of a larger set of promises to cultivate those groves, sell the oranges and distribute the profits back to you. That's an investment contract. So orange groves alone, whether I sell them to you or you buy them on an exchange, no investment contract. The very same orange grows coupled with a promise that I sell directly to you, that I am going to work to make those orange grows profitable. That entire bundle of promises is an investment contract and therefore, a security. But the orange groves alone are still just orange grows. Some would like you to think that a digital token can in and of itself be a Digital asset security, it can't. Standing alone, it's just a commodity or a virtual currency. As a virtual currency, you may use it for a payment. As a commodity, you may trade it like gold or oil or pork bellies. Confused? Well, I don't blame you because some have been doing their best to confuse you for years. Because the Securities and Exchange Commission only has jurisdiction over securities, not orange groves, And they don't like that. Like a hammer, they want everything to be a nail. But the law doesn't work that way. While retail holders of crypto certainly deserve protection from bad actors, not all roads lead to the SEC. Pretending to have jurisdiction when there is none is simply a political power play. It helps no one. It hurts everyone. Remember, a token by itself, not an investment contract despite what the SEC would have you believe.

@_Vekta - ๐•๐”ผ๐•‚๐•‹๐”ธ ๐ŸŒ˜

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk ok explain every eth erc token ever then

@agenda_america - Agenda for America

America needs a voice that's fighting for what actually matters. Follow @francissuarez today!

@MoonLamboio - Moon Lambo

@coryklippsten @attorneyjeremy1 @CoinDesk What partnerships did Ripple announce that are fake? Did you know that quantity of an asset held is not part of the Howey test? Did you know that most 1st time purchases of $XRP have never heard of Ripple?

View Full Interactive Feed