Our dislike for XRP is well documented on our site…if you have missed them, here is a list of articles where we have made our opinion based disdain clear…
This is not a personal attack, mind you.
We just don’t like the idea of a private company printing billions of dollars worth of money that is centrally controlled which goes against the spirit of crypto space. This is our opinion and we are sticking with it.
Yes, we understand that we might be missing out on life-transforming gains on XRP by staying away from it. It is OK with us.
We generally do not trade based on sentiment, however, XRP has always been an exception given what we want Crypto space to represent.
Given all that, we were not surprised at all when the latest FUD around SEC investigation into XRP came out.
Is this the beginning of the end for XRP?
“Justice is on the side that can afford the best attorney” is the common joke in my country…and that seems to hold true for the world in general.
If we are forced into speculating, this is what might transpire in our view:
- When drafting this article, we were of the opinion that SEC might just let this go through a simple fine (similar to EOS), however, after reading the complaint lodged by SEC we are not really sure that Ripple may be able to get off the hook that easy
- Ripple and SEC might compromise on a way forward in terms of reporting requirements, however, if SEC gets what they are going for – Ripple and Garlinghouse may not be able to continue their ‘sale’ of XRP
- Ripple may use this ‘excuse’ to move its headquarters to a more ‘friendlier’ location outside the US, however, an unfavorable outcome from SEC could jeopardise its chances in most locations
- Major exchanges could distance themselves from XRP until an outcome emerges to avoid getting caught selling unregistered ‘securities’
Is XRP a security?
We think so. Of course, the court will have to rule the final verdict but here are the reasons why we personally think XRP is not like other cryptos.
- Most projects actually are working on a solution and the revenue is dependent on the success and adoption of the project. On the contrary, XRP had minted 100 Billion at the beginning of the project and kept bringing 1 Billion at a time to add cash to their business. This means, whether or not there is any adoption – Ripple (and owners) made money by simply selling XRP. At the time of this writing, owners still control billions worth XRP.
- Most projects that run an ICO have a majority of coins distributed to the investors…creators have little say in the way those coins then get circulated…take for example, EOS. Although the company raised $4 Billion through ICO – they got away with a slap on the wrist because the owners do not control the majority of coins anymore
- Ripple/XRP executives were caught bragging about how they can sell XRP to keep the business going (notice, they talked about selling XRP to make gains more times than the adoption bringing success); Unfortunately, these talks are all public records and the SEC may use these in the court proceedings
- Pages 9 and 10 of the lawsuit is really important where SEC claims that Ripple was warned about XRP being considered a security by a law firm, however, Ripple disregarded these warnings…excerpt 57 and 58 from the lawsuit
“57. On May 26, 2014, Larsen explained in an email to an individual formerly associated with Ripple that the international law firm that wrote the Legal Memos advised “that investors and employees could not receive XRP” because that “could risk SEC designation [as] a security.” Larsen also explained that the XRP he received upon Ripple’s founding was “comp[ensation] for . . . personally assuming th[e] risk” of being deemed the issuers of securities—namely, XRP.
- In other words, as Larsen himself explained, he was paid at the outset in an asset (potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars) to assume a risk he knew existed—that the sale of the asset could constitute an offering of securities for which he would be held responsible.”
- There are allegations that Ripple paid companies to use XRP to ‘hide’ the fact that Ripple is difficult/expensive to use (this in the lawsuit), take a read.
“339. Much of the onboarding onto ODL was not organic or market-driven. Rather, it was subsidized by Ripple. Though Ripple touts ODL as a cheaper alternative to traditional payment rails, at least one money transmitter (the “Money Transmitter”) found it to be much more expensive and therefore not a product it wished to use without significant compensation from Ripple.”
Is this an attack on the entire Crypto industry?
We do not think so.
If the SEC wins this case, it will set a precedent against having ‘centralized’ control on the projects without being treated as a security, however, it is unlikely to stifle the projects that do not have centralized control on the supply and sale of the coins, in our opinion.
Our whole [opinion] contention from the beginning has been that XRP does not fit the definition of cryptocurrency. If anything, we are surprised that the SEC took this long to bring the charges.
It does not matter what we think about the project, what matters is the outcome of this battle.
Will the SEC make an example of Ripple or will Ripple find a way to circumvent these proceedings.
Things might get very interesting going into 2021 for Ripple, Garlinghouse and XRP.Note: We have to do this to avoid harassment from the XRP army, in case you missed it earlier, this is our speculative opinion. No one knows what might actually happen.
Thank you for reading and sharing this article. We appreciate you.
Stay safe and healthy!
Everything in this article is an opinion, not an advice of any kind. This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and it is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, investment, legal or other professional advice. Please consult with a professional for specific advice.
We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information and claims made.
All product and company names are trademarks™ or registered® trademarks of their respective holders. Use of them does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them.