Ripple(XRP) being Sued for being a Security

Investors sue Ripple for allegedly violating security laws

1. Ripple can freeze your funds
2. Ripple created all its coins at once and gave about 1/3 out
3. Ripple is the most centralized coin on the market, and IMO, anyone who disagrees just does not understand the inner working of the Ripple protocol.

Ripple is now being sued by an investor who is making the case the Ripple is a Security. This is not the only time Ripple has been called a security.

Tone Vays stated, " Ripple is no different than a poker chip that is being traded outside of the casino" and he may be right. Although, you should take this with a grain of salt since he is in fact a believer that XRP is a scam (like many others).

" Ethereum is a utility token used to move data within the Ethereum database, which just so happened to be Dapps, Ripple is an application token that just happens to move data around the ripple database. The concept is basically the same, but the data which is being moved around is different" - Tone vays during his talk with Doug Polk

So one thing I want to point out with Ethereum is that Ethereum can exist and could have been created without creating the Ethereum Token. The only plausible reason for creating ETH token for Ethereum is because 1. They wanted to print their own money 2. As some form of reasoning for nodes to join the network

Lets remember that if XRP is indeed deemed a security, there is no reason why ETH won't be deemed a security, and if ETH is deemed a security , then all ICOs will be deemed securities, and this is a HUGE issue.

So that being said, what are your opinions on this? What are your opinions on the idea of XRP being labeled an Security? What about ETH as a security? Do you see XRP user's countersuit going well?\

Leave your thoughts below.

 

you lost me at "tone vays"

 

LOL I see where you are coming from, and im not saying I am a fan or agree, but I do find it very interesting.

Even if Tone Vays didn't say it, what are your thoughts?

 

Wasn't this old news? them being sued.

 

YOU may be thinking of the old lawsuit with R3 that I think was dropped. I’m not sure though I didn’t keep up.

 

Oh yeh, Your correct. R3 lawsuit. hmm. I guess they are being sued again.

 

You can't sue for being a security lol.

The suit is on the basis that they believed they have "made money by breaking state and federal securities laws and purposefully misleading the public". All this on XRP gets so old since XRP/Ripple are so heavily protected in the legal realm of crypto. They were piloted for potential use by the Fed, and have plenty of ex-regulators on staff/payroll.

This will roll over just like the rest of the suits that will come since people are upset for whatever reason they choose.

 

Well yes I didn't mean they were being sued for being a security. My title is a little misleading, but I should've said "Investors sue Ripple claiming it is broke Security laws, and claim it's a security". So I apologize for that.



I'm still not sold on this idea that the SEC can't label XRP and most ICOs as Securities.

also, if you don't mind, go ahead and read the suit (if you haven't already), as I think you will find it interesting.

Coffey v. Ripple Labs Complaint | Securities (Finance) | Financial Markets




let me state that it is true, that unlike ETH, BTC, LTC, XMR, and many other cryptocurrencies, XRP created all 100 million of its XRP tokens out of nothing, Sold 40% of those tokens, and kept 60% of them. Also, lets be clear that XRP has admitted it is NOT a cryptocurrency, and see itself as a "digital-asset"- Ripple Labs.

There is this argument by XRP fans that because XRP will always exist if Ripple labs vanished, that it is somehow not a security (implying that XRP is not like a stock in a company), but this argument is flawed IMO.


Also, let us not forget that Ripple Labs offered $100 million worth of XRP to Coinbase, $1 million USD in cash to gemini, which they obviously declined, but this is obviously very very very shady.


Also, here me out on this point please, as it is pretty important. The reason ICOs only have "x" number of days to allow the purchasing of a token is because they legally cannot offer an ongoing ICO. This suit claims that XRP is (since 2013) in a "never ending ICO", and I totally agree.

How is XRP any different than any ICO? I don't see any reason why XRP can't be labeled an ICO, and if they are labeled and ICO ( putting a "security" aside for a moment), they can be found guilty on breaking laws for their "ICO", which again, I believe ripple can be classified as such.


Also, the suit also states that the main source of income for Ripple Labs is the sell of XRP, which is basically like all other ICOs.


What are your thoughts on these points?

 

also I meant to add that CoinDesk is one of the largest crypto news sites (obviously). Well they are owned by the Digital Currency Group I believe. DCG has a controlling interest in Ripple labs and CoinDesk was one of the forerunners in posting price action for ripple and continues to post only good news when it comes to ripple... just something I find very interesting