/biz/ - Business & Finance

GAAAAARY

>>53429361
>blocks the eth security announcement in your path

>>53429517
I hear ya anon, but it seems like all these other agencies are gonna have to battle it out with the SEC to see whose designation reigns supreme and SEC ain't waiting. I could be wrong here but wasn't XRP designated a commodity or currency by some agency too?

>>53429620
>wasn't XRP designated a commodity or currency by some agency too?
lol I'd love to see that

>>53429620
No it's an unregistered security

>>53429627
I did say I could be wrong I just remember alot of posts from schizos posting articles about some agency classifying XRP as a commodity or currency or some shit like a year or two before they were sued.

>>53429669
This might have happened before Ripple started telling people they'd pump XRP lol

>>53429627
Yeah cftc and another one I think. I'm a non burger so I don't know the names of American gov shit.

>>53429674
Joe lubin has also talked about the eth price increasing on a few occasions. In saying that even brad Garlinghouse says isn't a security, so I doubt anything will happen to it. If it does old Joe "gonna need" lubin and Hinman will be the fall guys.
XRP will also be classed as a currency soon enough. The case is 2 years old and the sec has done nothing except ask for extensions.

>>53429870
>Joe lubin has also talked about the eth price increasing on a few occasions
But did he promise to make that happen?

>>53429361
I'm a dense nigger, explain this to me? Is Eth a security or a commodity? Why did it dump?

>>53429923
It dumped cause all of crypto, except BTC,is about to be labeled a security. SEC will rape each and every coin individually for your protection

>>53429940
Only cryptos that say they'll pump their token are securities.

>>53429940
>>53429975
So are we supposed to expect another big dump or is it all priced in?

>>53429897
Did anyone from ripple promise it would?
I thought the ripple guys suggested it would.
Either way both will be currencies in the new system.

The SEC doesn't define Ethereum as a unregistered security then it will open up a huge loophole in securities laws. Companies will just create tokens and a blockchain to avoid the laws.

>>53430072
>Did anyone from ripple promise it would?
Yes, many of them and on multiple occasions.
Read the SEC complaint.

>I thought the ripple guys suggested it would.
No, they literally said things along the lines of "we'll do this and that to support the price of XRP".

>>53430079

>>53430081
we build more fundamental infrastructure, we see a correction, and the potential gets even more impressive… I absolutely expect that there is a strong correlation between the rise in price and the growth of fundamental infrastructure in the ecosystem and the growth of development in the ecosystem
Joe lubin.

>>53430087
>official
>2018

>>53429361
WTF happened? Is eth declared to be a security?

>>53430144
All of crypto outside BTC will be

>>53430110
He wasn't with ETH anymore at the time. He was talking about the general crypto market price slump.

>>53430087
that was when ETH was POW. it's POS now hence a fucking security.

>>53430079
A token on ethereum is not equal to ETH, you smoothbrain. If ETH is a commodity it does not mean that every shotcoin on etehreum is also a commodity and vice versa.

>>53430167
Ahh didn't know he left.
But as I said I doubt the sec will go after them.
t. XRP holders not maxi.

>>53430174
What part of the Howey test talks about staking?

>>53430119
>2018 is long ago
Buddy, the current legal standard for securities (the Howey test) is from 1946 or something.

>>53430087
That was one official's opinion but it's going to take case law to hammer it out. I'm not an Ethereum hater but I just can't see it getting a pass while everything else gets shutdown. The pic you posted is part of XRP's defense I don't think it's going to hold up. Just think about it logically, say XRP wins, it's going to open the floodgates of companies issuing ICO's rather than deal with SEC regulations.

>>53430218
>I just can't see it getting a pass while everything else gets shutdown
You'd have to get active ETH devs talking about how they'll make the price pump.

>load ze security fud

>>53429620
Lolno.
XRP will be the precedent used to designate all premined scam coins as securities.

>>53430185
Wow, and you are calling me a smooth brain? Do you even know anything about Ethereum? Joseph Lubin, consensys? But let's just say you are right and Ethereum is deemed a commodity and all the erc20 tokens unregistered securities, Ethereum would be useless.

>>53430271
XRP is only getting sued because Garlinghouse, Schwartz, etc. literally promised to pump the token.

What was the stated purpose of EIP token burning anyways? If Ethereum got a pass, lawsuits would rain down on the SEC.

>>53430291
No. They talked about the price increasing and shit but that's not the only reason.
XRP is basically a stable coin without Ripplenet, that's where the utility comes from. (Profit from other work whatever one of the howey test thing.)
I have other tin foil hat reasons but I won't go into them.

>>53430334
>They talked about the price increasing
They literally talked about how THEY would make that happen.

>>53430404
Even that statement is supported with a literal quote from LBRY literally saying their financial fate is intertwined with the holders'.

>>53429361
XMR, RAIL and MONERO have gotten my focus now.

>>53430443
How much cope can one person cope?

The quoted text literally says, as clear as day, that LBC would be a security, quote, "even if LBRY never said a word about it".

And yet you still COPE by claiming a project needs to SAY some magic words to make a security. They don't.

Cope more. Holy fuck.

>>53430344
Someone should do something about it.

>>53430160
Will they also come after other privacy project?

>>53430344
Besides those two tweets that Schwartz made stating that the price has to go up in order to move the massive amounts of money that swift can handle where did garlinghouse, Larsen, Schwartz, or any other ripple employee say anything about pumping the price? Find me a single quote. Dig through their company emails and slack conversations just like the sec did for well over a year. You won't find any. Because they never did.

I have no doubt that xrp will still be labeled a security but so will eth and every crypto that's not a bitcoin fork.

>>53430472
And yet his decision is rife with literal LBRY quotes.
Even directly under that specific part.
Nice spacing btw

>>53430486
The SEC is doing something about it lol

>>53430523
>where did garlinghouse, Larsen, Schwartz, or any other ripple employee say anything about pumping the price? Find me a single quote.
see pic

>>53429361
oh this guy also happens to be from that certain ethnic group
must be a coincidence...

>>53430543
Again, quoting directly:

"a reasonable purchaser of LBC would understand that the tokens being offered represented investment opportunities - even if LBRY never said a word about it"

Please tell me how you cope your way around this statement. It is as clear is it gets.

>>53430588
It's a secondary thought in a decision rife with literal quotes from LBRY that they'd pump the price.
Judge's decisions tend to have a lot of personal opinions and moral judgments etc. that are purely personal and hold zero evidentiary merit.

The SEC presented LBRY quotes to satisfy the "expectation of profit" part of the Howey test, and the judge decided on that basis.

Even if a similar case goes before that exact judge without ANY literal quotes, only the retention of tokens, chances are he may decide otherwise once defendants show the many reasons why tokens may be retained.

>>53430623
>Judge's decisions tend to have a lot of personal opinions and moral judgments etc. that are purely personal and hold zero evidentiary merit.
You have no idea what you're talking about hahahaha.

>chances are he may decide otherwise once defendants show the many reasons why tokens may be retained.
Man this is pathetic. I feel bad for you. Do you see that you're coping? Are you aware enough to recognize that in yourself?

>>53430543
>The sec is doing something about
I feel safe now, the CFTC and FinCEN have already classed XRP as a currency.
I suspect by the end of this case America will have a new department for crypto currencies. Just my tin foil thoughts.

>>53430654
>You have no idea what you're talking about hahahaha.
I work with legal texts on a daily basis, have done for over a decade.
The merits of this case are brought by the opposing parties, not the judge.

If it feels like ETH is a unregistered security, that's because it it.

>>53429940
>each and every coin
avax did it's IPO overseas to avoid this. American's could not buy.

>>53430511
SEC is coming after everything thats not BTC

>>53430543
Let me get this straight, anytime a Dev or Lead for a shitcoin mentions improving the value of a coin they can get fucked by the SEC if they haven't registered their coin as a security? With how many retards have lost money on this shit aren't they just one $50k bounty away from just setting up a reporting system for people to post discord logs discussing value of coins from basically taking down every coin team on the planet?

>>53430822
They don't even need to say anything, see
>>53430404

>>53430822
>anytime a Dev or Lead for a shitcoin mentions improving the value of a coin they can get fucked by the SEC if they haven't registered their coin as a security?
Yes.

> discord logs discussing value of coins
Devs discussing the value of their coin, specifically how they'll make it pump, are extremely retarded, yes.

>>53430834
Call us when a crypto actually gets sued without even saying anything.

>>53430822
Yes, you will need to be an accredited investor on order to discuss price action or buy any crypto that is created outside of BTC once the SEC is finished here

>>53430834
This anon gets it

>>53430864
>Call us when a crypto actually gets sued without even saying anything.
The precedent is already set. The SEC chooses easy cases because they want to win. Just because LBRY said security-like things doesn't mean they NEEDED to say those things.

>>53430686
>I feel safe now, the CFTC and FinCEN have already classed XRP as a currency.
lol even Ripple itself says it's not a currency.

The point of it all is that the SEC is regulating through enforcement. They don't care who says what, when, where, why and how, in the SECs mind it will have to be proven in court

>>53430894
>The precedent is already set
Protip: a judge's comments are not precedent.
The merits of the case as brought by the SEC consisted of literal quotes, which is the basis on which the case was decided.

>>53430915
The SEC is suing Ripple based purely on the Howey test.
It's regulating on the basis of 80-y-o SCOTUS case law.

>>53430932
>Protip: a judge's comments are not precedent.
It's not a comment. It's in the fucking ruling.

>>53430956
The ruling is what applies to the merits.

If a judge were EVER to attach arguments to a case's merits himself, he'd be debarred in an instant.

>>53430970
see
>>53430654
>You have no idea what you're talking about hahahaha.

>>53430955
>80-y-o SCOTUS case law
>implying laws have expiration dates
Why do you keep coping? Why can't you just accept that your shitcoins are going to be regulated? Did you really think this industry could lie to everyone for a decade, destroy the savings of millions of people, and nobody would notice or care?

>>53430914
Don't think I mentioned ripple. CFTC and FinCEN already have.
Also you're probably taking Mr Garlinghouse out of context.

>>53430979
Clearly it's you who has no idea what you're talking about.

The judge can NEVER add arguments to any case. If he brought that up during the trial itself he'd be disbarred.
In his judgment he can comment about all kinds of things, but what matters is the merits of the case; which are brought by the opposing parties and NEVER the judge.

>>53430990
>>80-y-o SCOTUS case law
>>implying laws have expiration dates
I mentioned the 80 years as proof of relevance lol

>>53431004
How is Ripple going to argue in court that XRP is a currency when they themselves are on record saying it's not?
Fucking lol

What I find hilarious is all the people outside of BTC maxis that rallied against ripple throughout the case, these are the same people whose shitcoins are about to be btfo'ed by the SEC. Like XRP or not the case will literally determine the future of every crypto outside BTC. And if ripple couldn't beat the SEC no way in hell any other crypto is, including ETH with the multitude of pump and dumps that platform harbored as well as now being POS.

>>53431032
I know I'm dealing with someone with an 80 IQ, but holy shit, please try to make sense.

I quoted from the RULING ITSELF. Why are you talking about arguments? Why are you talking about the trial? Why are you talking about "comments" by opposing parties? Nobody is mentioning anything about that.

The RULING is precedential. That's why I fucking quoted it.

>>53431044
Ripple is being sued because they told people they'd pump XRP.

And let's not forget the Hinman emails, if Ripple loses you can guarantee someone is leaking that shit which bust the doors open for the SEC ETH case

>>53431041
>proof of relevance
No such thing. Case law is case law. Win in court or shut the fuck up.

>>53431059
>I quoted from the RULING ITSELF
The ruling only sets precedent insofar as it applies to the merits of the case.

Obviously a judge CANNOT attach arguments to a case himself. If you think otherwise then god have mercy on your soul

>>53431071
I brought up the age of the Howey test case law to prove how long-standing and relevant it is.

>>53431059
Unfathomably based beyond belief. The cope experienced now is nothing compared to what is coming

>>53431061
>Every other shitcoin never had the value of the coin mentioned ever
Do people really think a judge is going to say "oh wow you're right, you did make a white paper about how your totally real coin was only made to empower Africans to secure their farm plots on the Blockchain and you definitely didn't create this to try to encourage people to buy in to create a return on their investment"? It's over.

>>53431092
>>Every other shitcoin never had the value of the coin mentioned ever
But did the devs promise to pump the price?

>>53430144
I think XRM, RAIL & SCRT are the security tokens here

>>53431098
Bro, im trying to be respectful here, it does not matter at this point what is explicitly said

>>53429975
The email where Hal Finney or Satoshi said one BTC will be worth 10 million dollars. How is that any different?

>>53431098
They don't need to. Would a reasonable person view Ethereum and how it has been marketed as an investment with expected returns?

>>53431109
>it does not matter at this point what is explicitly said
Weird, because the SEC only ever sues based on what is explicitly said.
The Enigma, LBRY, and Ripple complaints all rely heavily on direct quotes from the devs that they'd pump the price.

>>53431126
>They don't need to
They do if they want to get sued for being an unregistered security.

>>53431121
It might not be, source?

>>53431132
>the SEC only ever sues based on what is explicitly said.
They only do that so it's easier to win the case and allow them to set the precedent they want.

>>53431143
>They only do that so it's easier to win the case
No shit lol

>>53430332
What's the point of having a 21 million supply cap?

>>53431132
This is literally the same logic as "I can't get in trouble because I said 'this is not financial advice' anyway here's my pyramid scheme" before marketing a scam.

>>53431041
Brad isn't Ripple. As I said I'm sure it's out of context.
But hey I'm not the guy who reads heaps of legal texts, I'm sure you're right.

>>53431075
>only sets precedent insofar as it applies to the merits of the case.
OK. Please, clearly, tell me how saying "LBRY didn't need to say anything to make LBC a security" DOESN'T apply to the merits of the case?

>>53431163
>Brad isn't Ripple.

>>53431132
It was literally posted above

>>53431166
>tell me how saying "LBRY didn't need to say anything to make LBC a security" DOESN'T apply to the merits of the case?
Ripple did not argue for expectation of profit on the sole basis that LBRY retained LBC.

>>53431150
Do you understand the concept of precedent? The SEC's strategy isn't good for you or any of your favorite shitcoins.

>>53431162
This right here

>>53431183
Ripple is not the only party in the fucking case.

>>53431178
That's a judge's comment that is unrelated to the merits of the actual case.

>>53431204
Fucking exactly and the ripple case is still ongoing but the LBRY case is settled and that argument was valid for the SEC

>>53431216
>case about whether LBC is a security
>Judge says it is a security
>that has nothing to do with the merits of the case
OK.

>>53431166
>tell me how saying "LBRY didn't need to say anything to make LBC a security" DOESN'T apply to the merits of the case?
The SEC did not argue for expectation of profit on the sole basis that LBRY retained LBC.

>>53431204
mistyped

>>53431216
If so, it's a comment for a case that is already settled upon and can therefore be used as a reference point

>>53431231
>sole basis
No attorneys argue for "sole basis" for anything. They argue "in the alternative", meaning they throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. You only get one shot in court, so come with all arguments prepared. Yes, they argued that LBC was a security regardless of LBRY's statements.

>>53431230
>>Judge says it is a security
And literally the ONLY basis he can use for his decision is the actual merits as brought up by the opposing parties.
He literally cannot add arguments himself to the merits of the case.

His decision MUST be motivated by the arguments of the parties.
Once he does that, he can add any comment he personally wants but it will hold no value.

>>53431103
The perfect privacy ecosystem will combine all available solutions. You can't have a multisig with zk proofs and start freaking over your assets.

>>53431254
It may not hold value in your eyes but whose to say it's not in other judges or lawyers for future cases?

>>53431253
>No attorneys argue for "sole basis" for anything
The judge's comment implies the mere retention of tokens counts as the "sole basis" for holders expecting profits.

For this comment to hold actual precedence value, the MERITS of the SEC's argument should read as such as well.
Because the merits are literally the only thing a judge can base his decision on.

>>53431132
http://diswww.mit.edu/bloom-picayune/crypto/142207

He even calls it a "good bet".

>>53431279
>in your eyes
That's how the court system works, bozo.

>>53431279
>whose to say it's not in other judges or lawyers for future cases?
If a case is ever brought where the "expectation of profit" is solely motivated by "the team retained tokens", and the judge agrees in his decision, then yes that will be a precedent.

But the judge in this case actually based his decision on the actual argument, as he should.
He only added that comment after doing that.

>>53431299
That's Hal, not Satoshi.
Not confirmed anyway.

>>53431284
Here it is, direct from the SEC complaint itself.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2021/comp25060.pdf

WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW???

>>53431299
All of this ignores that Ethereum, yes, was a premine but that 100% of the premine was made available in a PUBLIC sale. Just like any member of the public could mine BTC using their laptop in the early days at ZERO COST while emails like these were floating around.

>>53431316
Hal, who is is definitely, absolutely 100% not that guy who invented that thing, even though he had all the knowledge and training and background.

>>53431383
It LITERALLY says the Operational Fund exists to allow LBRY to profit.
Obviously the larger the operational fund, the more profit, and the more intertwined the fortunes of LBRY ware with its holders.

This is now the same as saying "the premine ALONE creates expectation of profit".

>>53431416
Can you prove that in court?

>>53431422
You asked for evidence that the SEC argued that holding tokens made LBC a security. You asked this because, without that, you think the ruling wouldn't have precedence.

I gave you the proof.

Do you agree the ruling is precedential now as it relates to holding tokens?

>>53431448
>You asked for evidence that the SEC argued that holding tokens made LBC a security
I asked for evidence that holding tokens ALONE made up the "expectation of profit" argument.
Because that's what the judge is saying.

As soon as the token holdership is only brought up to further support the literal quotes of "we'll make the price pump", it very fundamentally does NOT say what that judge said.

>>53431468
>ALONE
Again, no attorneys ever argue like this. See
>>53431253

You're coping. Just accept it.

>>53431483
>>ALONE
>Again, no attorneys ever argue like this
Anon, the judge literally made a statement in that sense.
For that statement to hold any value as precedent, the actual argument must read the same.
If it does not, then it's an argument against which the defendant never had the opportunity to create a counterargument.

Even if the original complaint said
>"they held a lot of tokens which they LITERALLY SAID were for profit"
that's not the same as
>"they held a lot of tokens, and solely because of that there is expectation of profit even if they never literally said so"
because the latter would require a different counterargument.

>>53431566
"Because LBRY held such a large amount of LBC, its fortunes were inextricably intertwined with those of other investors of LBC."

Direct quote. I'm done with this anon, not going to do this any more. You have been BTFO in every argument you've made. The precedent is set, clear as day for you to read. If you can't see the writing on the wall WHEN IT IS DIRECTLY SHOWN TO YOU, there's no helping you.

Enjoy HODLing to zero.

>>53431434
I don't want to. Who invented Ethereum? Can you prove it?

>>53431642
Ironically enough if anyone even uses the word "holding" or "hold" when it comes to any of these tokens they are inherently saying that they are peddling an unregistered security since the implication is that their bag will be worth more in the future. Hopefully none of anyone's 'faves' had mentioned that word lmao

>>53431642
>"Because LBRY held such a large amount of LBC
... which LBRY literally said exists for them to profit from.

Obviously the more they hold the more they profit.
Even moreso considering all the quotes from LBRY saying they'd pump the price.

>>53431682
>I don't want to
Me neither

>>53431686
There are other reasons to hold, not in the least desirable token distribution.

>>53431642
Also, the mere fact that the "expectation of profit" section is supported by so many of LBRY's "we'll make it pump" quotes creates the obvious impression that them holding a lot of coins means they'll profit a lot from them pumping the coin.

For the judge's "holding tokens alone is enough" comment to hold ANY value as precedent, then the entirety of the SEC's case must be completely devoid of any mention of any quotes from LBRY that they'd pump the price.
Instead the complaint must literally say "they hold tokens and solely because of this there is expectation of profit". Then and only then can that judge's quote have any value as precedent.

>>53431167
How high up the corporate ladder do you need to be that your opinion is that of the company?
Honest question I know fuck all about how your corrupt as fuck country works.

>>53431790
Being perceived as a key and influential figure is enough.
Being the ceo for instance counts lol

>>53431781
>then the entirety of the SEC's case must be completely devoid of any mention of any quotes from LBRY that they'd pump the price.
No. it. fucking. doesn't.

They need ONE argument SOMEWHERE in the complaint that says holding tokens creates the expectation of profit. I proved they did that. See the fucking red boxed statement here
>>53431383

>>53431804
>No. it. fucking. doesn't.
Yes it does.
Because if it does not, but the judge actually decides anyway that "the premine alone is enough to create expectation of profit" (which he didn't do btw) then the opposing party never got any chance to create a counterargument, violating the very core principle of procedural justice.

>>53431730
Ah yes, give me 1 good reason why anyone would hold a coin to lose money in the long term?
>Dude just buy and hold, it's going to be great when it's worth less in the future!
Said nobody ever.

>>53431830
I mean for the issuer to hold.

>>53429361

>>53431829
You're such a fucking liar.
The SEC made the argument here
>>53431383
The judge agreed with it here
>>53430404

>which he didn't do btw
Fuck you.

>>53431802
So when Hinman gave his speech about eth and BTC at a conference that would count? Or was that his personal opinion. Can you see why I'm confused?

>>53431868
>The SEC made the argument here >>53431383
LBRY literally said that fund was held for their profit.
And considering the many quotes saying "we'll pump the price" that came before, obviously this profit involves rising token prices.

The more tokens they hold (which they said themselves they would pump), the more they'll profit.

>>53431906
see
>>53431868

>>53431871
Was Hinman a key influential figure within the ETH/BTC organizations?

>>53431919
You're a braindead prole lmao

Imagine thinking even for just one second that a judge can personally add new arguments to a case. IMAGINE

>>53431934
>personally add new arguments
You're such a fucking liar.
The SEC made the argument here
>>53431383 (You)
The judge agreed with it here
>>53430404 (You)

>>53431939
>The SEC made the argument here
The SEC did not make the argument that SOLELY holding those tokens creates expectation of profit.

1) LBRY literally describes those tokens as being for profit
2) the SEC states numerous direct quotes from LBRY saying they want to generate profit through pumping the token price, which obviously also applies to the fund tokens

>>53431977
>The SEC did not make the argument that SOLELY holding those tokens creates expectation of profit.
You're such a fucking liar.
The SEC made the argument here
>>53431383 (You)
The judge agreed with it here
>>53430404 (You)

>>53431923
He was at the SEC when he gave the speech. People thought that it was guidance from the SEC and bought up ETH, the price went up heaps. Then later on the SEC claimed it was just his personal opinion. The sec seems corrupt as fuck to me.

>>53431988
the SEC:
>LBRY literally says they'll pump the token

also the SEC:
>LBRY literally says they hold tokens for profit

also the SEC:
>LBRY holds a lot of tokens

In no way, in any universe, is the SEC saying merely holding tokens creates the expectation of profit.

>>53432016
>In no way, in any universe, is the SEC saying merely holding tokens creates the expectation of profit.
You're such a fucking liar.
The SEC made the argument here
>>53431383 (You) (You)
The judge agreed with it here
>>53430404 (You) (You)

>>53432012
>He was at the SEC when he gave the speech
Obviously when you're not part of the organization that issues the asset in question, your statements don't mean squat in this sense.

>>53432023
>Steve will eat a turd
>Steve has turds in my septic tank

According to you, the mere fact that "Steve has turds in his septic tank" means he will eat a turd.

>>53432042
>>Steve has turds in my septic tank
*his septic tank

>>53429627
>>53429620
The UK and Japan have designated XRP a utility token, UAE has ruled that it's the only sharia compliant crypto asset

https://boscoin.io/ripples-xrp-a-sharia-compliant-cryptocurrency/

>>53432028
Does the fact that he moved back to Simpson Thacher after the SEC change anything?
Simpson Thacher sits on the board of the Ethereum foundation.
Thanks for the free school lesson by the way.

>>53432158
He was also getting paid by Simpson Thacher while working at the sec.

>>53432158
>Does the fact that he moved back to Simpson Thacher after the SEC change anything?
No.

>Thanks for the free school lesson by the way.
You're welcome.

>>53431257
ZKPs is actually the leading innovative tech and a game-changer in the privacy sector, only the best privacy project uses it

>>53432620
false

>>53432673
What is false, you dickhead?

>You will live long enough to see bagholder bingo spaces used to justify why grifters weren't trading unregistered securities
M-m-mr. SEC I swear I was just in it for the technology!

>>53432865
>dickhead
lol, dont get stuck on details

I'm amazingly retarded. Does this while thing means ether is no more? Will I be able to buy more ether? Will ether go up or down? Please explain in terms that I, a retarded person, can understand

>>53433170
There is no ETH is a security announcement, retard. These faggots have been spamming the board with these threads for days.

>>53430197
activate your brain first before you post.

>>53431257
>multisig
Ore Network makes this fucking easy.

>>53433199
Wrong. ETH is confirmed to be an unregistered security.

>>53429620
XRP was designed as a security, marketed as one, and has been developed as one. I really don't know what the fuck they were thinking but clearly the Jewish infighting needs to be resolved so we can move on with selling or not selling scams to Americans

So Ethereum is going to die because it's fake and gay? Oh no. Anyway..

>>53434994
Wrong. It's going to continue to be given a free pass and you will continue to cope seethe and dilate BTCmaxifag

>>53434875
The onchain ID management solutions make it quite easy.