This is a bizarre attempt to rewrite history. Among other obvious contradictions between this and the facts, how is this consistent with arguing that Ripple's sales of XRP on exchanges were offerings of securities contracts? The SEC absolutely argued that holders of XRP reasonably expected profits f

This is a bizarre attempt to rewrite history. Among other obvious contradictions between this and the facts, how is this consistent with arguing that Ripple's sales of XRP on exchanges were offerings of securities contracts? The SEC absolutely argued that holders of XRP reasonably expected profits f

You're not paraphrasing it, you're drastically changing its meaning. In your defense, this is what the SEC was expecting people to do. But I think you're smarter than that. The SEC is absolutely *not* conceding here that the only issue is whether Ripple "sold it as a security" as you claim. It is m

I agree. The problem is that you are falsely characterizing the argument they are making as a different argument they are not making. For example, you said, "Their only legal argument was that Ripple sold it as a security." But that's not true. A concession that there could be a world in which XRP

Do you seriously disagree with the proposition that their primary argument was that XRP was a security because XRP holders, regardless of how they got the XRP, could reasonably expect profits from Ripple's efforts? If not, what do you think was their argument about sales on exchanges?

You are ignoring the entire thrust of their argument, their statements around it, and the pushback they got from the court. This is an attempt at completely rewriting history. The complaint itself frequently refers to XRP itself as the security. The SEC's press release complained Ripple "sold XRP"

The SEC was *absolutely* arguing that most tokens were securities, period. This was both to courts and to the public. Had Ripple settled the case rather the fighting, the SEC absolutely would have continued to claim that we settled because XRP *was*, like most tokens, a security. You seem to have e

The SEC was *absolutely* arguing that most tokens were securities, period. This was both to courts and to the public. Had Ripple settled the case rather then fighting, the SEC absolutely would have continued to claim that we settled because XRP *was*, like most tokens, a security. You seem to have