/biz/ - Business & Finance

It means Chainlink is a security.

>>53429562
Truly a mustery for the past ages.

>>53429607
WHOOAAAA where am I, bizarro world???
I don’t remember signing up to get bamboozled today!

xrp is a virtual asset, with no legal meaning, its not a contact like a stock or bond where there are contractual obligations. buying xrp is not an investment of money in a common enterprise any more than buying gold is.

>>53429733
>contractual obligations
Mere transactions can be "investment contracts".

>>53429742
yes, and?

>>53429755
The contractual obligations flow from merely being a transaction.

>>53429762
there is none other than to provide the xrp. and the buyer to provide whatever they're buying it with. there is no investment, its an asset exchange. there is no common enterprise.

>>53429800
>there is none other than to provide the xrp
There are the promised efforts to pump the price.

>>53429807
Nope. Gold sellers can say they think the price of gold will go up, sell gold, and that doesn't make gold a security. The price of an asset going up is not a common enterprise.

>>53429926
Paper gold is a security because it's actually a good.
There's no "common enterprise" in buying paper gold either according to your logic, since buyers just buy the paper gold.

Obviously common enterprise does not mean what you think it does.

>>53429942
>because it's actually a good.
*because it's NOT actually a good.

>>53429942
>>53429984
Well commodity futures like gold futures aren't securities, retard. Gold funds or companies are because they are shares in a company. XRP is not.

>>53430034
>Well commodity futures like gold futures aren't securities, retard
Not talking about futures. You're still buying the actual good.

I'm talking about paper gold, certificates and the like.
You're simply buying the paper, so according to you there's no common enterprise. But it is a security, so obviously your idea of common enterprise is different from that held by legal, commercial, and judicial authorities.

>>53430053
"Paper gold" includes futures and funds. So what are you talking about? If you buy a gold trust or gold ETF, those are shares in a company, they are legal contracts that represent ownership in a company. Gold certificates are contracts that represent ownership of gold, its similar to a deposit. None of that has anything similarity XRP so I'm not really sure what your point is.

>>53430102
>"Paper gold" includes futures and funds.
I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about certificates.
They are securities.

>>53430114
Yes, and? XRP is not a certificate... A gold certificate is like a bank deposit, you have a contract to redeem it for a specific amount of gold. XRP is not redeemable for anything.

>>53430138
You're trying way too hard.
Look up Enigma.

>>53430138
What kind of insane mental gymnastics are you doing were you buy XRP because you expect the price to go up after they win a lawsuit that’s supposed to prove investors didn’t buy XRP because they wanted the price to go up?

>>53430261
No shit they bought XRP because they thought it would go up. Just like you could buy gold, lumber, copper, etc. because you think the price will go up. That doesn't make something a security.

>>53430306
The devs promising to pump the price makes it a security.
Look at Enigma.

>>53430321
You have to link it to your own efforts. Like if you sell a token and say I am going to do something to make this token valuable in the future, then you get into security territory if you also own a large part of the supply or can mint coins - meaning you can use the asset as a funding mechanism. But you can say you think an asset will increase in value and sell it, that is obviously not a security, gold and other commodity sellers do this all the time. And they are not securities.

A token can be a security if the devs hold 99% of the supply, or can mint tokens, then sell tokens while promises to work to increase the price. The nuances are at what point do the devs control the supply, when they own over 99%? 90%? Or is it relative to liquidity? This is really where the argument is in these cases. Plus you need evidence that the promoter implied that their efforts would lead to price appreciation.

People buying something because the think the price will go up, that alone has nothing to do with it.

>>53430425
>You have to link it to your own efforts.
Which Ripple did by literally saying they'd pump the price, and even how.

>>53430455
No they didn't. They can say they think the price will go up because of the utility value of the network or something. That's not saying you will "pump the price." Plus you have to find they control xrp, because just because you use a commodity as part of a security offering, doesn't make the entire commodity a security. Like if I sold gold certificates, it doesn't make all gold a security. Ripple holds a lot of xrp, but how much would be required to make xrp a security, that is the question.

>>53430306
You would buy copper or gold because you want copper or gold because they are commodities with uses, and nobody owns the concept of gold.

>>53430565
>No they didn't.

>>53429562
>Charizard cards are a security
This is fucking regarded

>>53430593
If Nintendo promises buyers the price will go up, probably.

>>53430572
You would buy xrp because you want xrp because is has uses as well, and nobody owns the xrp network, its decentralized and open source.

>>53430643
>because it has uses as well
Not according to Ripple

>>53430578
As demand for any commodity grows the price will appreciate. Just like the gold industry might promote the use of gold in jewelry and as investments, and obviously a gold miner would say that maximization the price of gold is beneficial to their business. That doesn't make it a security, because there is no investment in a common enterprise, you are buying gold for its utility value, no because it represents an investment someone else is managing.

>>53430691
All commodity prices are party speculation, that has nothing to do with securities.

>>53430789
>you are buying gold for its utility value
That becomes a problem when Ripple itself says there is no utility other than speculation.

>>53430578
>>53430789
like you can say you will increase the price of a commodity by increasing the utility value (like promoting adoption of the network), the value comes from the asset, the value is not coming from an obligation ripple has to owners of the token.

>>53430816
>(like promoting adoption of the network)
Only one of those quotes even mentions anything like utility.

>>53430811
He said primarily speculative, not that there "is no utility," try to read better

>>53430832
Even the utility it ostensibly has is fabricated.

>>53430905
That has nothing to with securities law. Are you just quoting the SEC's argument? Because most of that is just spaghetti shit they throw at the wall to see what a judge will bite on. They aren't actually serious arguments. Just attempts to grasp whatever straws they can.

>>53429562
If xrp can fail because of a third party intervention, government or private, then it deserves to die. Simple as.

>>53430939
lol you were the one who brought up utility as an argument against being a security.

>>53431027
Well Ripple is kind of a big deal when it comes to XRP, isn't it?

>>53430939
They always use the same images and ignore all the other documents filed.
It’s pointless to argue with them since they will never agree; they hate xrp for one reason or another but it doesn’t matter.

>>53429742
>can
The SEC is corrupt and the coping is hilarious. They are going to lose so much power that Ripple will be lauded as basically the George Washington's of the financial world leading to a whole new world of finance for regular people.

>>53429762
But this would only apply to some Ripple sales like 8 years ago.
How would that apply to me, any online faggot who didn't even get his XRP from Ripple?
Legit asking.

>>53431916
>But this would only apply to some Ripple sales like 8 years ago.
It would apply to all sales made by Ripple.

>>53431951
Yea, so...
I've been saying this the whole time. The MOST bullish scenario is Ripple losing.
They don't control the XRPL.
They may have to burn or give up the escrow thereby decreasing the supply.
XRP goes on just as it is and future sales cannot possibly be security sales.
I know some people just fud, but others are actually retarded.
OH NO BRAD IS IN TROUBLE!!

>>53430633
By making a product limited edition the clear implication is that the price will go up because supply will always be dwindling while demand could theoretically go up infinitely.

>>53432104
Just called Gary. The tip hotline is busy so I called him direct.

>>53432104
>By making a product limited edition the clear implication is that the price will go up
You can try to argue that in court, but your chances of success are extremely slim.

99.99999% of mass-produced trinkets released in limited edition did not go up in value.

>>53429607
Nice bottom shelf tier fud moron, Sergey and co. never told you to expect a dime of profit

>>53432132
>did not go up in value
So just like XRP. Got it.
I know you are trolling for fun, but the OUTCOME of the promise would have no bearing on your guilt in these cases.
>yea I sold a security and promised it would go up but I failed so I didn't do it so therefore it wasn't a security
Yea no.
It's an embarrassing performance by you so far. At least stay logically consistent.

>>53432176
>So just like XRP.
It's different when you literally tell people you'll try to make it go up in value lmao

>>53432192
That's not what you said though. You implied that the sales weren't a security just because you failed at keeping the promise.
I've larped better while on the pot.
Study up sonny. At least don't let the people you are trolling twist you up in knots.

>>53432216
>You implied that the sales weren't a security just because you failed at keeping the promise.
Releasing a limited edition in no way constitutes a promise of future price increase fucking lmao

Saying you'll try to increase the price does.

>>53432243
I read your post. Denying what you said is not becoming.
Why did you add the part about "99.99999% blah blah" when it's irrelevant?
Not something someone with cogent thought processes would say.

The one question no one can answer. How can I burn/destroy my xrp on chain so that it no longer exists? If OP cannot answer then they are a shill.

>>53432268
>Why did you add the part about "99.99999% blah blah" when it's irrelevant?
This shows that it's hard to argue that merely releasing a limited edition implies that the price will go up.

>>53429562
i neither expect to make money and sergey can't produce good optics to save his life, so clearly stink is NOT a security.

>>53429607
>expectation of profits
uh, no