reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the SEC has never pursued hedge funds for shorting and distorting Tesla, even when they allegedly lied on TV to harm retail investors. This inaction is attributed to the SEC's incentive structure. Lawyers at the SEC are allegedly underpaid and seek high-profile cases to enhance their resumes for future employment at high-paying law firms. The speaker alleges that these lawyers avoid targeting hedge funds, who are potential future employers, prioritizing their career prospects over protecting small investors. This is described as regulatory capture.

The speaker expresses concern about the judge's choice of labels for different categories of buyers and sellers in a securities law case. They argue that the labels have caused confusion, as people mistakenly believe that institutional buyers have more protections than retail buyers. The speaker questions the judge's understanding of securities laws and suggests that the focus should be on the intent of the seller and the information they provide to the buyer. They use the example of selling corn to illustrate their point. The speaker agrees with the judge's ruling but believes that the labels should have been about the manner of sale to institutional buyers and programmatic buyers, rather than specific buyer categories.

The speaker acknowledges the impact of the amicus participation in the case, believing it played a crucial role in the outcome. The judge's order penalizes Ripple with $700 million but exempts them from over $1 billion. It establishes that buyers must be aware of who they are purchasing from for it to be considered an investment contract and declares that secondary market sales of digital assets are not securities sales. The decision both penalizes Ripple and protects the speaker and others, while also challenging the SEC's control over exchanges. The speaker initially didn't fully understand the decision but now sees it as a brilliant move.

The speaker discusses how hitting the wealthy ruling class in their brokerage accounts is more effective than in their bank accounts. They highlight how the stock market impacts everyone, not just investors, and how regular people are using market mechanics against corrupt institutions like GameStop. The speaker emphasizes the divide between regular investors seeking justice and the bankers, politicians, and regulators profiting off manipulation. They caution against media portrayals of investors as greedy, urging people to see through the facade and resist returning to a system that benefits the elite.

It's important for people to understand that they can be bailed in, but there's concern about causing a run on the institution. Reaching the general public who doesn't have a professional need to know might be difficult and could potentially scare them. The unintended consequences of sharing too much information could undermine public confidence in the banking system. However, those in the institutional side and professionals in law firms have the means to understand this. It's important to be cautious about sharing too much with the general public.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

The speaker expresses concern about the term "investment contract" and its potential for arbitrary enforcement in the context of cryptocurrency. They question whether an investment contract requires an actual contract and refer to the Supreme Court's definition, which includes an investment of money in a common enterprise with anticipated profits from the efforts of others. The speaker argues that a scheme or transaction does not necessarily mean the absence of a contract, citing the SEC v. Howie case as an example. They challenge the other speaker to provide a Supreme Court case that found an investment contract without an actual contract, but the other speaker fails to do so. The conversation also touches on the question of whether purchasing a Pokemon card or a tokenized Pokemon card on a digital exchange constitutes a security transaction.

Wall Street tries to present finance as complicated to the public, even though the speaker says it isn’t. They argue this complexity is used because Wall Street makes a lot of money from fairly simple activities and does not do much. By using terms like derivative, stock options, commodity futures, and different types of contracts, they veil what is actually understandable. The speaker asserts that all of it is fairly understandable, and that Wall Street, because of the money it makes from simple things, needs to make it more complicated than it really is.

The speaker raises concerns about the lack of clarity in determining which digital assets are securities. They reference a letter from Prometheum, signed by Benjamin S. Caplan, co-CEO, which highlights the burden on the industry and the need for regulatory framework clarity. The speaker questions Mr. Caplan on the change in Prometheum's stance since the letter. Mr. Caplan mentions that enforcement actions and statements by the SEC have provided more clarity on the designation of digital assets as securities. The speaker then questions why Prometheum's customers cannot trade popular digital assets like ether and bitcoin. Mr. Caplan explains that regulation and new ATSs and custodians should proceed gradually. The speaker concludes that legislation is needed to address the lack of a consistent definition of a digital asset security.

The speaker begins by referencing a comment letter from Prometheum regarding the SEC's broker dealer framework. They highlight the burden on the industry to determine which digital assets are securities and the need for clarity in the regulatory framework. The speaker then questions what has changed since the letter was written and why Prometheum called for clarity. The response mentions additional enforcement actions and statements by the SEC that have clarified the designation of digital assets as securities. The speaker further questions why Prometheum's customers cannot trade popular digital assets like ether and bitcoin, to which the response mentions the need for a gradual approach in adding assets. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the lack of a consistent definition of a digital asset security and the need for legislation to address this issue.

Speaker 1 asks why “everyone” wants GameStop to fail, citing the media as an example. They argue that GameStop’s management team has “no skin in the game,” describing it as consisting of people who are “not builders,” have not built anything themselves, and have only been “employees at major companies that have been overpaid.” Speaker 1 contrasts this with people they portray as taking risk, saying “there’s nothing more American than basically risking your own capital.” They state, “I’m putting 500 million of my own money into this transaction,” and add, “I haven’t pulled a penny out of GameStop.” They also claim that “everyone in the media basically wants us to fail and wants them to succeed.” Speaker 1 further describes the board as making “hundreds of thousands of dollars a year,” not buying stock with personal money, and only showing up to a handful of board meetings. They argue management is “grossly overpaid” and “taking zero risk,” and then reiterate the question: “So why does everyone want us to fail?” Speaker 0 responds that the media, to give credibility, “they’re going to have to acknowledge that all of their takes on GameStop just being a meme stock were wrong.” They add that there is “actually a business here and that there is value being created here,” and they say the media “missed that and they got the story completely wrong.”

Speaker 0 raises concerns about the labeling of violence in court, noting, 'Oftentimes, we've even found as legislators when we go into these courts, the term violent crime is even used when people are stealing packages.' They add that it is used 'when people are accused of burglary and there happens to be a housing unit in that same dwelling.' They assert that 'Violence is an artificial construction' and stress the need to be very clear about 'what is happening here with these district attorneys,' concluding, 'That is violence. That is violence at the highest level.' Right. Right. 'We have'.

The speaker discusses the difference between equity and equality. They explain that equality refers to equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background. On the other hand, equity focuses on ensuring equal outcomes for everyone. The speaker expresses their preference for equality over equity.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

The speaker claims the SEC never pursued hedge funds for shorting and distorting Tesla, even when they allegedly lied on TV to harm retail investors. The speaker attributes this to a flawed incentive structure within the SEC. SEC lawyers are allegedly underpaid and seek high-profile cases to enhance their resumes for future employment at high-paying law firms. The speaker alleges these lawyers avoid targeting hedge funds because those funds are clients of the law firms they aspire to join. According to the speaker, this dynamic leads to regulatory capture, where small investors are sacrificed for the lawyers' career advancement.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

The speaker expresses concern about the term "investment contract" and its potential for arbitrary enforcement in the context of cryptocurrency. They question whether an investment contract requires an actual contract and refer to the Supreme Court case of SEC v. Howie, which involved multiple contracts. The speaker challenges the idea that a scheme or transaction must be without a contract to qualify as an investment contract. They ask the other speaker to cite a Supreme Court or 2nd Circuit case that found an investment contract without an actual contract, but the other speaker is unable to do so. The conversation also touches on the definition of a security transaction and the role of tokenization.

It's not insider trading unless trading on personal information. Market manipulation is the concern, like promoting a stock. The distinction is unclear. Discuss the tweet's impact on markets and investing. Join the program to explain your actions.

The speaker questions the practice of banks taking actual cash value from borrowers, using it to fund bank loans, and then returning it as a loan with interest. The judge acknowledges that this is a common practice and that Congress allows it. The speaker highlights that borrowers essentially give their own money to the bank for free, which the bank then loans back to them. The judge confirms that this is the bank's policy. The speaker emphasizes that borrowers are unaware of this process and urges people to educate themselves about the financial system.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

The speaker discusses the uncertainty surrounding court cases involving XRP and Ripple. They mention that the SEC seems to be leaving the decisions to the courts, which will determine whether these tokens are considered securities or commodities. The speaker highlights the importance of clarifying the status of utility tokens and suggests that the SEC should have provided clearer guidelines. They acknowledge that the court system may be the most appropriate way to resolve these issues. The speaker also raises questions about investment contracts in the crypto space and the challenges of determining what information is material to token holders. Overall, the speaker emphasizes the complexity of transitioning investment contracts to non-security transactions.

The speaker pledges to push for a single stock trading ban, arguing "it is the credibility of the House and the Senate" that is at stake from "eye popping returns," observed in figures like "Representative Pelosi, Senator Wyden," suggesting "every hedge fund would be jealous of them." They assert "the American people deserve better than this" and that "People don't shouldn't come to Washington to get rich." Instead, they should "come to serve the American people," as such trading undermines trust in the system, because "if any private citizen traded this way, the SEC would be knocking on their door."

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

Speaker emphasizes 'no interference in research' and urges that 'this government or who or we, the people, stand up for, you know, righteous research and no retraction of data and no interference in research.' They argue that while the public may be educated by podcasts, 'doctors, the scientists are gonna be educated by watching by reading the data.' Addressing labeling, they state that 'mislabeling that that, the the labels that mislead the consumers, we're never gonna fix our micro I agree.' They reference Kennedy, saying 'Kennedy's saying it's propaganda. This research has been basically propaganda. And, now, hopefully, he's going to put an end to it, but it's a it's a long row.'

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.