Ripple paradox: For a company that claims to be a separate entity for XRP, Ripple is terribly contradictory

Ripple's main mission this year was to force everyone to call their XRP token and not, as previously popularized, Ripple. This was primarily a precautionary measure by the time the SEC knocks on Ripple's door while deciding if XRP is a security or not.

The essence of the matter is, Ripple is rubbing their website (unsuccessfully, thanks to archive.org) of all previous statements in which they do not distinguish between Ripple and XRP and where they openly reveal that XRP is their creation and main source of income. The current narrative ripple and their paid and unpaid bots on social networks are trying to pass off is that Ripple has nothing to do with XRP and that 60 billion XRP tokens have been gifted to them, completely unauthorized by their.

But if it was so easy to avoid the unfavorable decision of the SEC, how come nobody invented it before? Just say that you did not create security, someone else did and gave you 60%, just because. For a company with so many brilliant minds, it's quite disappointing that they could not find something better.

Ripple with XRP brand

According to this website that keeps track of registered trademarks, XRP is a trademark currently owned by Ripple Labs. And the trademark registration was filed five years ago, in 2013 by OpenCoin and transferred to Ripple Labs later. OpenCoin is a technology company that has developed the protocol for the Led XRP registry. He was directed by Jed McCaleb and Chris Larsen and later renamed Ripple Labs in 2015.

As you can imagine, this has caused a stir on Twitter encrypted, where the anti-Ripple field has openly wondered how it can be, while tagging their "nemesis" from the Ripple field.

#ripple owns the #xrp trademark … "completely decentralized, xrp is completely separate from Ripple"

Furthermore, xrp was called "Ripple credits". I wonder why they changed the name? https://t.co/nyplPmi9GS

– Devil's compiler (@devilscompiler) 21 September 2018

And registered trademark.

– Bryce Weiner (@BryceWeiner) 10 December 2018

The discussion between Bryce Weiner, blockchain developer and Tiffany Hayden, presumably unpaid, ripple defender (not sure what he does for a living, has never seen anyone do so much unpaid work out of the goodness of their heart).

His argument for the brand was to grab the brand before the trolls of the patents or the "wrongdoers" did it before them. Weiner launched on this opportunity by stating:

"This is a trademark, not a patent, and it appears that the trademark was initially established by OpenCoin and * transferred * to Ripple, Inc. presumably so that the brand can continue to be applied, but it is also open source, so patented trolling is not a thing. Look at Linux, for example.

In the instance of XRP, the brand follows the tokens from the creator to Ripple. A line of direct and demonstrable legal succession. Nothing in itself. However, in the context of a more in-depth discussion of the mechanisms of how XRP was born, it is rather harmful. "

And here comes the decisive blow of Weiner:

"A cryptocurrency network can not enter into legal agreements such as trademarks, patents or contracts, which require a legal person to interface with the government." A legal entity that then speaks for that network in legal matters is … … centralization. "

This is the definitive proof of the vertical connection between Ripple and XRP (founder and its product) that will severely impede Ripple's agenda to free the XRP from itself and prevent it from being classified as security by regulatory authorities.

Weiner went on to say: "To maintain a brand, it is necessary to assume the legal ownership of the intellectual property of the network: the claim to be decentralized goes completely, those who affirm a brand claim to have the right to claim it from the right of creation."

Hayden tried to fight back:

"Maintaining an active brand is assuming that the legal ownership of the network is legal property." All I have to do is deposit a trademark and the network is mine? Sweet."

But Weiner was too good at this:

"Of course, if you control the circulating supply of tokens, marketing, advertising and development, it is a complete picture that is painted in. Courts of public opinion and posture of social media despite".

The final blow was another failed attempt by the Ripple Defender in which he said it was impossible to buy XRP directly from Ripple and how nobody could ever do it. But Weiner was ready for this too, as he said that Roger Ver did it in 2013. And then he left his 2 options to choose from, both of which make XRP a security:

"If Roger received tokens as a function of his being a shareholder, this makes XRP a security.If Roger bought XRP from Ripple regardless of that relationship, it makes XRP a security while Ripple checks supplies.It's not a good argument you're doing here. "

If Ripple plans to go out in front of the SEC with such a weak case as this Twitter character "does not work for Ripple," they can say goodbye to their second place in the crypto rankings once the hyper-sensitive cryptic crowd begins to panic sell out.