Ripple notches win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency

&quot;partial&quot; win!? It&#x27;s hard to see what would be a &quot;win&quot; otherwise... It&#x27;s going to have also larger implications - the SEC somehow manages to lose that one, it was hard to imagine or predict. If not even XRP is a security, there is truly no other coins which could be a security. Hate it or love it, but the SEC is simply going to lose all their other lawsuits<p>EDIT: oh funny ... Reuters edited their title and removed &quot;partial&quot; :-)

IANAL<p>The court ruled that:<p>- Ripple&#x27;s sales of XRP to institutional buyers <i>were</i> investment contracts, but<p>- programmatic sales via an anonymous exchange <i>were not</i>.<p>The ruling emphasises the distinction between an asset and an investment contract. An orange grove isn&#x27;t an investment contract. The sale of an orange grove may or may not be an investment contract. Determining whether or not is governed by the Howie test.<p>If ChatGPT is to be believed (ha!), secondary sales of common stocks are not investment contracts: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chat.openai.com&#x2F;share&#x2F;d3865e23-9210-4977-bda5-b4ded8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chat.openai.com&#x2F;share&#x2F;d3865e23-9210-4977-bda5-b4ded8</a>...<p>If you don&#x27;t want to read the whole ruling, look at pages 13-15 and 22-24.

The SEC should&#x27;ve left crypto alone. Instead of crypto getting destroyed by the SEC, now it looks like the SEC might get destroyed by the judicial branch if they choose to go up the chain with this case. This SCOTUS is massively unfavorable toward the executive making up rules to enforce, or taking liberties with interpreting standing law. If it gets there I imagine a 6-3 Alito opinion gutting the SEC&#x27;s wiggle room in defining a &#x27;security&#x27; and enforcement reach.

Great day for crypto and for financial freedom in general. Great to see the justice system finally rebuking these unelected bureaucrats and placing some limits on the power they claim to have.

Looks like the crypto critics are now confused and have gone silent again after the Bitcoin leveraged ETFs getting approved and now they got this one wrong again. Just for the ones at the back, it is absolutely <i>NOT</i> the SEC that determines what is and what isn&#x27;t a security and the SEC does NOT get the final say, which this summary judgement has already shown.<p>But of course complain all you want, but there was a reason why the SEC did not want the Hinman documents unsealed (whilst everyone else was screaming at another hysteria around Coinbase in [0]) and the SEC attempted to request those documents to be sealed and that was denied as well. [1]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36302231">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36302231</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36306757">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36306757</a>

&gt; But Torres ruled Ripple&#x27;s XRP sales on public cryptocurrency exchanges were not offers of securities under the law, because purchasers did not have a reasonable expectation of profit tied to Ripple&#x27;s efforts.<p>&gt; Those sales were &quot;blind bid&#x2F;ask transactions,&quot; she said, where the buyers &quot;could not have known if their payments of money went to Ripple, or any other seller of XRP.&quot;<p>I bet this gets overturned on appeal. It makes no sense to me. Seems like a huge loophole if it stands. Maybe it&#x27;s explained better in the actual ruling, anyone have a link? Of course you can count on Reuters to never link to important information.

This is IMO rather odd logic. I skimmed the opinion. If identical logic were applied to ordinary stock shares, it seems like it’s saying that shares in a C corp are securities if the C corp sells them to institutional investors, but that if the C corp sells the same shares by putting limit orders on a stock exchange (NASDAQ, for example) and Reddit-reading meme stock buyers buy them, then somehow the C corp didn’t actually engage in a sale of securities.

2024 will be massive. Shitcoin explosion plus bitcoin halving = crypto mayhem.

This is supposed to be pretty huge. Besides coinbase and others relisting XRP what changes should we expect to see in the short term?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;docket&#x2F;19857399&#x2F;874&#x2F;securities-and-exchange-commission-v-ripple-labs-inc&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;docket&#x2F;19857399&#x2F;874&#x2F;securities...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;storage.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.nysd.551082&#x2F;gov.uscourts.nysd.551082.874.0_4.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;storage.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.nysd.55...</a>

The SEC would be really dumb to take <i>this</i> to <i>this</i> Supreme Court<p>I wouldn&#x27;t even appeal to the appellate court if I were them, if they want to even exist after the subsequent round<p>I think we got this in the bag ya’ll

What does this mean for Ycombinator&#x27;s Stellar?

This is a decision on a motion for summary judgement, not on the merits.