@Darker45. I am not saying that you are specifically tricked by the news. I am only implying that most of the time, all of us are influenced by what we read from mainstream news media. They will use different statements that might make the truth appear more abstract and make it appear that something else was being said.
On the ruling, as the judge declared, XRP as a digital token is not in and of itself a contract, a transaction or a scheme that embodies the howey test requirements of an investment contract. This is a very important statement the sets the precedent that many of the other crypto projects' tokens are not illegal securities. If the SEC wants to argue differently then they should appeal the ruling. We should not be tricked that sometimes it is a security, sometimes not. The ruling clearly declares that it is not.
On the ruling, as the judge declared, XRP as a digital token is not in and of itself a contract, a transaction or a scheme that embodies the howey test requirements of an investment contract. This is a very important statement the sets the precedent that many of the other crypto projects' tokens are not illegal securities. If the SEC wants to argue differently then they should appeal the ruling. We should not be tricked that sometimes it is a security, sometimes not. The ruling clearly declares that it is not.
I'm now wondering whether you have actually read or understood the entire decision. It's not wrong to paraphrase the decision if only to make it brief and direct to the point, therefore, easier to digest, for as long as the point is there. Not saying everything verbatim is not equivalent to "mak[ing] it appear that something else was being said." We're not being tricked here. We're simply repeating what is there in the decision itself. But let me just bring you to the actual text of Judge Torres:
"For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part."
"For the foregoing reasons, the SEC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Institutional Sales, and otherwise DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Programmatic Sales, the Other Distributions, and Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s sales, and DENIED as to the Institutional Sales."
The decision does not declare that XRP is "sometimes it is a security, sometimes not". Those are your own words, your personal interpretation. And those are the wrong words and interpretation.
The decision is actually founded upon the fact that "the SEC alleges that Ripple engaged in three categories of unregistered XRP offers and sales:
(1) Institutional Sales under written contracts for which it received $728 million;
(2) Programmatic Sales on digital asset exchanges for which it received $757 million; and
(3) Other Distributions under written contracts for which it recorded $609 million in “consideration other than cash.”"
The court's decision is based on these three different categories, and they ruled as follows:
- On Institutional Sales: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP constituted the unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act."
- On Programmatic Sales: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales of XRP did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts.
- On Other Distributions: "the Court concludes that Ripple’s Other Distributions did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts."
These different decisions are the reason why there is not only one winner in the case. Clearly, the court favored the SEC in one category and opposed as to the other categories. In the same manner that it also granted Ripple's motions in some categories and denied in the other one.
And I repeat that Judge's Torres decision is not based on the XRP token alone but upon consideration of "the economic reality and totality of circumstances."
Yes I am aware of the totality of the judge's decision. However, and I am only saying, that it is very important for us not to be confused on what the judge's ruling on XRP really implies. The ruling states clearly that XRP as a digital token is not in and of itself a contract, a transaction or a scheme that embodies the howey test requirements of an investment contract.
This is the part of the case where all of the other cryptocoin and token projects can use as precedent when they begin fighting for their own legal battles.
In next coming months, I reckon that we should not get distracted and be influenced by legal terms or specific details of the case that might leave us more confused. The ruling on XRP has already been made very clearly.
On how Ripple's case ends after the SEC's appeal, I do not care. I am only talking about the present ruling on XRP. It is not a security.
