Great Ripple Debate to Gain Momemntum

Some believe that the decision of the US Financial Crimes Network, issued in 2015, allows classifying XRP as a tool that can not be controlled by the SEC
18 June 2018   2074

Last week, a representative of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) acknowledged that bitcoin and Ethereum could not be recognized as securities because of their decentralization and would not be governed by relevant laws. However, the question of whether the XRP is a security remains open. This is reported by Bitcoinist.

Some believe that the decision of the US Financial Crimes Network (FinCEN), issued in 2015, allows classifying XRP as a tool that can not be controlled by the SEC.

@codetsunami Twitter
@codetsunami Twitter

During the trial in 2015, FinCEN accused Ripple Labs of violating the banking secrecy law, stating that the startup acted as a financial services company without registration with FinCEN. In addition, Ripple at that time did not use the proper practices to prevent money laundering.

Subsequently, the conflict was resolved, the criminal prosecution was terminated, and Ripple was fined $ 450,000. More importantly, the sale of XRP was allowed. Ripple Labs also made the necessary changes to its own protocol to ensure transparency of transactions. Prosecutor Melinda Haag, commenting on this case, said that she hopes that Ripple will set a standard for future investment proposals in the field of digital currencies.

FinCEN already signed an agreement with Ripple Inc. allowing them to continue their XRP sales. If XRP is an unlicensed security then FinCEN now has to explain why they signed an agreement allowing the sale of said unlicensed securities. Never going to happen. XRP isn't a security. These are the agreed facts of the settlement where FinCEN agrees with prejudice that XRP is a currency and therefore not a security. This debate is over.
 

Richard Holland at Twitter

Not everyone agrees that FinCEN's decision will prevent the SEC from recognizing XRP as a security, but the existence of a precedent is undoubtedly an important factor in regulation.

US Crypto Companies to Support TON in Case With SEC

The Blockchain Association said Telegram taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements
23 January 2020   458

The Blockchain Association, which combines companies such as Coinbase, Circle, 0x and Ripple, issued an expert opinion as part of the ongoing proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Telegram.

Previously, the Digital Commerce Chamber launched a similar initiative. The blockchain association, however, was more straightforward and stated that Telegram had taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements. According to members of the organization, the actions of the SEC can damage not only Telegram, but the market as a whole.

The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.

 

The Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association notes that for many years it has not been possible for SEC to obtain clear and unambiguous guidance for conducting activities in the cryptocurrency space, while the claims of the regulator make the current situation even more ambiguous. 

The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.

 

The Blockchain Association

They cite examples of startups TurnKey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters, in respect of which the regulator recommended not to apply legal measures, adding that such litigations inevitably involve high costs and do not guarantee industry participants that they will not be prosecuted in the future.

Telegram discussed its plans with SEC staff for a year and a half, provided copious information and responded to limited feedback by adjusting the design of its transaction. Yet, at the end, the SEC has sued, and the SEC’s briefs thus far say nothing about the substance of those discussions. 

 

The Blockchain Association

In conclusion, the group asks the court to “reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.”