the right thing of course would be to take all the SEC XRP and buy bitcoin with it.

Are you reading this, Trump?

Do the right thing! Secure the Federal Credit!

MAGA

"To protect consumers, maintain market integrity, and uphold the very essence of Bitcoin, Congress must act boldly and outlaw rehypothecation of Bitcoin for all entities"

Why should rehypothecation be banned for bitcoin, but not all assets?

What makes sense is to ban rehypothecation for assets (any asset) where the service is fully custodial. In these cases, savers should expect to pay a service fee for the custody, as with the etf -- perhaps 2% a year. Savers should also understand they aren't entitled to interest. Of course here, no rehypothecation.

In other cases, where the saver gets paid interest, this is where you have some gray areas and it makes sense to talk about what is not allowed, and rehypothecation and perhaps other things should be carefully spelled out and there should be clarity on the oks and the not oks.

more context:

for more context, SEC is appealing:

It may be too late though. Not because the logic in the SEC's appeal will be faulty, but because with Trump in power it may be politically inexpedient to take a stand against crypto, even for a high level judge. Judges read the room, just like we all do. (And Torres definitely did.)

And please note, overall I like Trump.

But I also think getting rid of the Howey test is going to be a terrible mistake. Every future scam of any type will just be snuck by snuck by under crypto tokens and drain dumb money from the public markets that mistakenly thinks they are still playing in a protected sandbox, because they were prior to the Ripple decision by Torres.

(above link is paywalled / nagwalled)

wall bypass:

"On Wednesday, January 15, the SEC appealed a decision by District Judge Analisa Torres in the SEC's civil case against Ripple Labs, Inc. Judge Torres' decision was published in July 2023, and as was widely reported at the time, concluded that Ripple's XRP token was an investment contract (and therefore subject to the SEC's registration requirements) when Ripple sold them to institutional investors, but that they were not investment contracts when Ripple sold them to retail investors because, generally speaking, the retail investors did not know they were buying XRP from Ripple. In hindsight, the SEC arguably did not adequately address this distinction at the trial level. Despite the fact that Ripple had introduced much evidence at trial showing that certain investors did not know they were buying XRP from Ripple (and therefore, according to Ripple, could not have reasonably expected that Ripple would use their money to improve the XRP ecosystem and thereby increase the XRP price), the SEC did not do much at trial to counter that point. Ultimately, this proved central to the District Court's decision, so the SEC's appellate brief focuses much attention on cleaning that up. Aside from arguing that retail XRP investors did believe Ripple would use their capital in ways that would lead to investment returns, the SEC's appellate brief primarily argues that the District Court was just wrong in determining that an investor actually needs to know they are buying coins from an issuer in order for a coin to qualify as an investment contract that should have been registered. Here, the brief is largely a re-litigation of the issues raised at trial (on an issue that the SEC lost). It also comes across somewhat half-hearted, but this may not be a wasted effort (if the SEC continues to pursue this appeal at all under the new Administration). That is because several courts facing similar (but slightly different) facts following the 2023 Ripple decision have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that investors do not need to know they are buying coins from an issuer (nor do they need to buy from the issuer at all) in order for coins to qualify as investment contracts. Like the Ripple case, one of those subsequent cases was in the Second Circuit, and expressly rejected the reasoning in the Ripple decision. Therefore, the SEC may believe that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will simply be more persuaded by the logic of the other courts and judges. Those cases all involved important factual differences, though, so it is not clear that the Appellate Court would do so. Ultimately, the fate of the Ripple case may be decided by whether the SEC decides to continue appealing this case at all under the Trump Administration. If the agency does not, that would certainly be a win for Ripple, but it would leave the rest of the market in a state of continued uncertainty as to whether similar offerings or sales are subject to the securities laws

Jonath T Ammons / Reed Smith"

I have no evidence for this asasertion, but my belief is crypto rich insiders probably bribed judge Analisa Torres in the ripple case to get the ruling they wanted. The ruling wrt Howey just makes no sense to me.

" On July 13, 2023, Judge Analisa Torres issued a summary judgment decision in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 2023 WL 4507900 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), holding that Ripple's sales of XRP through secondary trading platforms did not constitute securities transactions while its direct sales to institutional investors did. "

Once ripple got their ruling from Torres, Gensler's hands were tied.

So the heat should be on Torres, not Gensler.

I agree with him but why does he have to sound like a whiny little bitch?

this speech should be dubbed with morgan' Freeman's voice.

excellent article, 10 points to Gryffindor.

I'll buy them off you.

Don't leave, SuperTestnet!

"To ensure that project forums are open and friendly, we count on maintainers and project representatives to behave in a way that is not disruptive to any one participant's well-being."

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/1207/files status: merged

translation: contributors can be cancelled for non technical subjective reasons, with oversight by a trust me bro committee.

Lightning is Woke.

lol! that will fix America's credit ;)

"Yet another one of them is that consumers revolt, entrepreneurs intervene, before the end of 2015 there's about a thousand to a million different Bitcoin forks, each with its ten million-ish monetary base worth about a dollar, on global average. The size of the inter-Bitcoins market, the complexity and confusion ensuing makes pretty much everything unmanageable for the "ordinary person"."

he not only predicted hyperbitcoinization but as a bonus, hypershitcoinization.

he was basically right about both outcomes.

good brain on this degerate troll.

AI is also being slammed for energy use.

truth is many (maybe most) data center operators that one do both, placing their bets on which will be more profitable going into the future.

this is not going to turn into a fight over Bitcoin or AI. it's going to turn into a fight over free markets and energy.

tax evader owes the government $1mm, but coins are worth $124mm. irs wants him to disclose all of it. boating accident defense failed. or did it?

can they make him? can they tell if he didn't?

interesting to see how this will play out.

we"ll start to see academic literature like this coming out from the fed, Harvard, think-tanks...

try to get a law passed to make company strategies like with mstr illegal, or only allowed for special cases.

put fear of class action lawsuits into corporate boards, hold back the tide of Treasury bitcoin another year or two.

will be difficult with trump driving the school bus though.

Darth you maniac.

nice job.

See subsection on multiple horcruxes.

The argument is not that people will never need a scaling solution that accounts for more self custody.

It's that if there doesn't seem to be a bottleneck now, it's not an emergency.

You respond to the bottlenecks you actually have, not the bottlenecks you might have.

Resources are limited, you have to prioritize.

You rule @darth

Not your signet ring, not your signature.

Probably

Too small lol