[ad_1]
Dr.T, a prominent member of the XRP community challenged Ari Paul in a Twitter thread about XRP not being a security. Here, Dr.T said that XRP is not a security because the digital asset was created before Ripple. More, Ari Paul and a few others engaged in an intense argument on the subject. The original tweet by Dr.T stated:
"I just came across this. I noticed that @AriDavidPaul had liked the tweet as well. You're aware of these facts I'll let your followers know as well: XRP was created before Ripple, so it can not be a security. Merry Christmas & Happy Holiday season Mike. "
Here, Paul replied by writing that is "inaccurate" legal advice on the web as it could be held liable for it. He also stated that if Ripple was created five years after XRP, XRP could still be a security. Furthermore, according to Howey Test, which is a test used by the Securities and Commission Exchange [SEC] to check if a digital asset is a security or not, the timing of Ripple incorporation is not an eligible determinant.
In the cryptocurrency space have been posting several screenshots of early Ripple PR, Twitter posts and website captures where they created XRP. By this, Paul negated the argument of XRP being born before Ripple. He then opined boldly, indicating that Ripple may have been committed early fraud if the claims were related to XRP.
To this, another member of the XRP ecosystem joined the Twitter thread to voice his opinion. In his tweet, he brought the point of "XRP once being a security, but is not any more". He wrote:
"Blackberries
This article was previously translated (show / hide search) This comment has been automatically translated (show / hide original) curious curious curious Im camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp X X X X X X X X X X X X X only thing that will satisfy those opposed to it? "
By now, the discussion had turned into a rebuttal session where it was Paul's turn now. Here, he stated that the SEC enforces the regulations. 1936 and 1934 Securities Acts Legislation and interpreted by the courts. According to him, SEC's opinion carries much weight and pragmatism at this hour.
ecent reverted to the above and wrote:
"Thanks but that was not my question. I am curious in your opinion the CT "XRP is a security" camp will be satisfied with "XRP was but is no longer a security" from the SEC. Will that be satisfactory to you?
According to Paul, a statement of intent by the SEC that will be communicated: a statement of intent by the SEC that is not likely to be prosecuted. He added that a statement would probably support civil lawsuits.
In his next post, he stated that the key to winning the race is purely intellectual honesty and general clarity in the cryptocurrency space. In his words:
"I do not like" gaslighting. "It's up to regulators and judges to enforce laws and regulation as they will."
On the contrary, the intellectual honesty is important indeed. However, he is an opinion on the "XRP is a security". XRP is clearly not a security for the legal clarity established abroad as well as for the security of the cryptocurrencies.
This statement by ecent took a deep hit when Ari Paul re-framed some of the points. Here, Paul questioned the stance of the US on XRP being a security. The tweet read:
"I do not understand. Are you saying that is a security, but you're hoping that in other countries it's not and / or that the US will change its laws to retroactively make the crime of selling an unregistered security not to crime? You're saying XRP is a US security? "
The debate continued as both parties stuck to their arguments. The other members of the cryptocurrency space and the XRP in specific joined and submitted their comments on the subject.
Subscribe to AMBCrypto's Newsletter
