Is Ripple $XRP A Security? I Think So… Let’s Discuss! (SEC’s Howey Test)
Ripple $XRP has been in the news lately because class action lawsuits have been sprouting up against it. Specifically they claim Ripple sold XRP, an unregistered and therefore illegal security as defined by the SEC and the Howey Test. In this video, we will take a look at the specific accusations against Ripple, what makes it different than ETH/BTC, our analysis about Ripple’s particular case, and some possible scenarios that may play out if Ripple is indeed determined to be a security.\n\n#Cryptocurrency #Crypto #Ripple #XRP #Security #SEC #News #Updates #Prediction\n\nEnd scene music: \nAdventures by A Himitsu https://soundcloud.com/a-himitsu\nCreative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0 \nhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/b…\nMusic released by Argofox https://youtu.be/8BXNwnxaVQE\nMusic provided by Audio Library https://youtu.be/MkNeIUgNPQ8\n\nFor a competitor of CoinMarketCap, please check out: https://www.livecoinwatch.com/
Ripple does not consider its token a security
Ripple filed a waiver petition claiming XRP token is not an investment contract.
«The XRP acquisition is not an investment in a company.
There are no preliminary agreements between token buyers and Ripple. No one promised that Ripple would help generate profits for XRP holders», – company representatives said.
In May 2018, a group of investors filed a lawsuit against Ripple and its executives, claiming they violated state and federal securities laws.. Last month, the group filed a complaint alleging that XRP tokens are unregistered securities under the direction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In its appeal, Ripple basically argued that the lawsuit was filed too late. «According to the plaintiff’s own statements, the defendants offered XRP to the public from 2013 to 2015. Accordingly, the three-year limitation period for the case has already expired. Thus, the requirements of the law «About securities» in a complaint filed on August 5, 2019 lost their relevance», – said in a statement.
Another argument for Ripple is that the company did not sell tokens directly to plaintiffs.. «Countless other XRP holders in addition to the Defendants have purchased XRP on exchanges, making it impossible to plausibly conclude that the Plaintiff acquired the original XRP distribution from the Defendants», – celebrate in the company.