XRP is a gamble not an investment, never was, never will be (property, stocks, mutual funds, shares ..... are investments)
A gamble is just a other expression of "stupidity tax".
Junk XRP is ridiculous overprice (ever product has base price, whats xrp base price?)
No potential, node operators are illegal unless purchased license and comply with MSB (Liberty Reserve operated 15 years before being shut down)
Right... I'm sure you Mr.
Random Guy on Internet is more knowledgeable than a multinational fintech company which operates since 2012.
Maybe you're more knowledgeable even than the government, why don't you write the government a latter to let them know Ripple is using illegal operators? But I guess they are too busy right now with fighting Huawei so that they can sell more iPhones.
All saved on Bolchchain, 2020 will be an interesting year.
https://bico.media/1f8e0c5f47b470f3df0f06f3d2939adccc1f2b7dafa0b4a32a69663cda2c6760.pdfSEC ruling that
node operators must have money transmitter license (cost 6 figure sum) and
comply with AML/KYC and also every
user must scan ID.
1) This looks like an explanation of existing rules, not a new law. I spent some time reading it and it just explains to not-crypto-related people many things we're already familiar with.
1st page, 2nd paragraph,
This guidance does not establish any new regulatory expectations or requirements.
Rather, it consolidates current FinCEN regulations, and related administrative rulings
and guidance issued since 2011, and then applies these rules and interpretations to
other common business models involving CVC engaging in the same underlying
patterns of activity.
2) This is from "Bank Secrecy Act", it's only affecting US. All US based cryptocurrency projects already require KYC from their customers, this is nothing new nor related to XRP only.
3) You make it sound like it's something terrible, but a company needing a license isn't that big of a deal. You probably didn't realise this, but this document you linked would be more damaging for Bitcoin and it'd probably wouldn't affect XRP at all.
Let me explain (3),
In page 9 of this document, it is stated that
FinCEN regulations, specify certain activities are excluded from the definition of “money transmitter.”
Specifically, a person is not a money transmitter if that person only: provides the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services;From the above quote we understand that XRP nodes wouldn't be affected by this even if it was something new, they do not received a mining/staking reward for their services... even though I believe getting an extra licence and being reviewed by one more agency isn't a catastrophe.
Now read pages 20-21, section 4.5.2 which talks mainly about anonymity-enhanced coins, but the same principal should apply to BTC as well. Quoting paragraph (C),
note that CVC = Convertible Virtual Currenciesa person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a
money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance
and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed (even if the
CVC value was mined at an earlier date). The person would not be a money
transmitter if that person uses the CVC it mined to pay for goods and services on
his or her own behalf.
From what I understand from the above paragraph and the rest of the document, being a node doesn't qualify you as a "money transmitter". Ripple Labs themselves should still be qualified as "money transmitters" since they're selling XRP to companies, but this is nothing new and it hasn't stopped them from doing their business.
It makes me wonder though, how are Bitcoin miners viewed under this law? The moment they sell their coins to another entity, they are considered "money transmitters" and the obligations mentioned in section 2.1 should apply to them.
I'd like to see how an average person who is mining Bitcoin will operate within the law!