In 2012, Ripple reached out to a legal company to get a review of its business model and obtain recommendations for reducing legal risks. After the company’s first analysis, Ripple went back to the drawing board and submitted a new proposal.
Now, ten years later, the legal memos have been unsealed as part of the SEC vs Ripple lawsuit, and emotions are running high.
Ready to let rip
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, ກ່າວວ່າ,
“The truth is out for everyone to read. What we see is that the SEC waited 8 years to decide they disagreed with this analysis, decimating thousands and thousands of XRP holders (who they purport to protect) in the process. So much for being mission-driven…”
“The fact that Ripple had the foresight to seek legal advice from a prominent firm in 2012 – in the absence of clear case law and 5 years before the SEC even started talking about digital assets – should be applauded…”
Don’t be so insecure
But the question stands – what exactly did the law firm say? Perkins Coie, which even the SEC called “reputable,” stated,
"ເຖິງແມ່ນວ່າພວກເຮົາເຊື່ອວ່າການໂຕ້ຖຽງທີ່ຫນ້າສົນໃຈສາມາດເຮັດໃຫ້ Ripple Credits ບໍ່ປະກອບເປັນ "ຫຼັກຊັບ" ພາຍໃຕ້ກົດຫມາຍຫຼັກຊັບຂອງລັດຖະບານກາງ, ເນື່ອງຈາກການຂາດກົດຫມາຍກໍລະນີທີ່ໃຊ້ໄດ້, ພວກເຮົາເຊື່ອວ່າມີຄວາມສ່ຽງບາງ, ເຖິງແມ່ນວ່າຂະຫນາດນ້ອຍ, ທີ່ຫຼັກຊັບແລະການແລກປ່ຽນ. ຄະນະກໍາມະການ ("SEC") ບໍ່ເຫັນດີກັບການວິເຄາະຂອງພວກເຮົາ."
Investors should note this is a long way from confirming that Ripple Credits – which we know as XRP – was not a security. In fact, this is where the problem lies. While Ripple execs defend XRP, the SEC has claimed that Ripple ignored several recommendations by the legal firm ‘in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to fund its operations.’
ຈະເປັນ [ຄວາມປອດໄພ] ຫຼືບໍ່ແມ່ນ?
“We need Congress to step in, and in a bipartisan – and it must be bipartisan so it stands the test of time – in a bipartisan manner, establish a regime to regulate this new development.”
Source: https://ambcrypto.com/ripple-ceo-says-legal-memos-prove-xrp-not-a-security-how-accurate-is-it/