What does an injunction against future violations mean? Why would that be weightier than the criminal legal code? Shouldn't such an injunction be assumed by pretty much everybody doing anything?
"Alright, stop what you're doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin."
Seems to me that this is a fast changing space of product offerings vs adaptation of regulations. Some transactions violated, some did not. Some planned future Ripple developments could cross the line. Seems that Ripple just needs to continue working the system, so the regulations catch up and give the entire space some guidance on what they can and can't do.
Overall a positive development. The penalty was reduced from something like 2Bs and XRP jumped 20% on the news.
> A federal judge imposed a $125 million fine on Ripple after finding last year that its institutional sales of XRP violated federal securities laws.
OK so it violated the SEC rules for the institutional sales.
> The judge reiterated her view that Ripple's programmatic sales of XRP to retail clients through exchanges did not violate federal securities laws.
But it did not violate the SEC rules for the sales to retail.
I was confused at first. As someone else wrote in the thread: it's poorly worded.
and of people familiar with this dimension of yet unchallenged securities case law, this has been one of the criticisms of the SEC:
Nothing the SEC does can accomplish investor protection in the crypto markets.
Nothing the SEC does can accomplish the mission Congress set for it, in the crypto markets.
There are ways to leverage blockchain transparency for real time disclosures far beyond what is seen in the stock market, and investors already have choices in sticking with offerings that leverage onchain transparency better. A concept of government can help standardize this approach to help capital formation.
SEC enforcement on the teams and exchanges will only harm investors in liquidity and price discovery. I would say that the SEC making itself known has improved the quality of crypto offerings, but there is still a far better approach possible.
> The $125.035 million fine is well below the $1 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $900 million in civil penalties the SEC sought.
- XRP is managed centrally by mostly unknown folks (this is its worst attribute)
- therefore supply isn't fixed and unverifiable
- therefore transactions are ultimately reversible
- protocol security is a joke (see other's remarks in this thread)
- XRP is not anonymous
- XRP was pre-mined
- etc ...
Also, being a very, very distant cousin of Bitcoin, and almost unknown to the masses, it has received almost no scrutiny from the tech. crowd.
Basically, XRP is the equivalent of a county fair token, managed by the local carnies.
I still baffles me to this day that anyone would still pay attention to it.
Walk away from that garbage fire as quickly as you can.
It's like a religion. It reminds me of the weirder side of the Gamestop stuff.
It’s not really exciting, mostly just disappointing they’re still in business, but anyone who wants to learn more can look up: XRPL genesis block
https://xrpl.org/docs/concepts/consensus-protocol/unl
"trust us, our validators are good too!"
Anyway - for each industry from which the violations occur, those resources go into these buckets where no politicians allowed - and voting will havent for a GovFundMe Campaign - and it gets funded and every single action on that thing is trackable actively by everyone who voted for the thing and a tracking status board for the implementation of them. And who needed to be shamed in order for that GovFundMe campaign to be completed.
We don't want a repeat of lotteries funding schools, where that money becomes expected and then the government doesn't give as much direct funding.
> We don't want a repeat of lotteries funding schools, where that money becomes expected
Making it exclusively one-offs doesn't address that problem at all. What it does is aggravate the problem of people going out looking for someone they can fine to cover their budget.
A construction company's entire business consists of one-off jobs. They expect the money to come in anyway and they're built to rely on the fact that it will. Other organizations funded through one-offs are no different.
All the sales made to retail were not protected, simply because they went through an exchange.
I'm so tired of waiting for regulatory authorities and legislators to wake up and do their job.
Accountability and deterrence doesn’t have to come from the SEC
The SEC contains people passionate about this, but that doesn't mean they are the specific authority eligible
The FTC exists too, they are aware of their capabilities in the crypto space. They have circulars since 2017 as well.
There is also Congress. Agency deference is dead anyway.
I guess we just solved crime!
SEC has been trying to label pretty much every crypto a security, and XRP is probably the closest thing to one, so if they couldn’t get this…
Meanwhile, both scammers pretend to be working for the victims... And many of the victims are so f** stupid, they actually believe one side or the other.
I blame Hollywood for brainwashing everyone into believing that every story has a good guy and a bad guy. WRONG. Most stories in our society only have bad guys.
That's an old argument, best summarized as "when it comes to milking the masses, the government does not like competition"
What, specifically, are you referring to?
It’s based primarily on what the issuers have said
Losing your entire fortune isn't impossible by any means, even coincidentally right when your wife announces she wants a divorce, but you'd think he'd have a more forthright explanation for why there is no record (person, investment contact, business record on the other side, etc) to point to anywhere for his 2.5 million dollar exchange. The only reasons I can think to not are ones that also explain why he'd rather take contempt of court charge than say what happened (illegal investments, purposefully losing the money, hiding the money, trying to do one of these things and being conned). For that reason I definitely feel the guy shouldn't have been jailed but I don't really feel bad for the guy as in he got screwed by bad luck or something.
Did he have no evidence whatsoever? Or was the evidence unconvincing?
The judge who released him also noted that they believed Mr. Chadwick could pay the owed amount but that it was clear keeping him in prison wasn't going to make that happen
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1
At the end, I think his bad investment was to pick his ex-wife. I think.