Get the most recent info and news about Ripple on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

Using proven crypto and blockchain technology honed over a decade, Ripple’s enterprise-grade solutions are faster, more transparent, and more cost-effective than traditional financial services. Our customers use these solutions to source crypto, facilitate instant payments, empower their treasury, engage new audiences, lower capital requirements, and drive new revenue.
Founded in 2012, Ripple's vision is to enable a world where value moves as seamlessly as information flows today—an Internet of Value. Ripple is the only enterprise blockchain company today with products in commercial use. Ripple’s global payments network includes over 300 customers across 40+ countries and  six continents.

Ripple

ripple-labs

Explore how Ripple&#x27;s ongoing XRP sales, strategic escrow use, and potential future releases impact the token&#x27;s long-term value. Read more on DailyCoin!

Ripple's Escrow Activity Heats Up with New Accounts and Strategic Sales: Is It XRP's Double-Edged Sword?

What’s the difference between Ripple Labs and the XRP cryptocurrency? Which ancient symbols inspired XRP and the Ripple logo, and what does it mean?

Which Ancient Symbol Inspired the Ripple Logo and What Does it Mean?

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 1 of 5. Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendant, Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”), alleging that Ripple engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), (c). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 430–35, ECF No. 46. On July 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (the “Order”). Order, ECF No. 874; see SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 3d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), motion to certify appeal denied, 697 F. Supp. 3d 126 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Now before the Court is the SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment. [1] SEC Mot., ECF No. 948; SEC Mem., ECF No. 949; Proposed Judgment, ECF No. 950. For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND[2] This case involves Defendants’ offer and sale of XRP, the native digital token of the XRP Ledger, a cryptographically secured ledger or “blockchain.” Order at 2. On December 22, 2020, the SEC commenced this action. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. An amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2021. ECF No. 46. As relevant here, the SEC alleged that Ripple engaged in three categories of unregistered XRP offers and sales: (1) Institutional Sales[3] under written contracts for which it received $728 million; (2) Programmatic Sales on digital asset exchanges for which it received $757 million; and (3) Other Distributions under written contracts for which it recorded $609 million in “consideration other than cash.” Id. at 15–16; see id. at 4–5. The SEC also alleged that Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, two of Ripple’s senior leaders, engaged in unregistered individual XRP sales from which they received at least $450 million and $150 million, respectively. Id. at 5, 16. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act, it is “unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, . . . to offer to sell, offer to buy or purchase[,] or sell” a “security” unless a registration statement is in effect or has been filed with the SEC as to the offer and sale of such security to the public. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), (c), (e). To prove a violation of Section 5, the SEC must show: (1) that no registration statement was filed or in effect as to the transaction, and (2) that the defendant directly or indirectly offered to sell or sold the securities (3) through interstate commerce. See SEC v. Cavanagh, 445 F.3d 105, 111 n.13 (2d Cir. 2006). At summary judgment, the Court—applying the Supreme Court’s test set forth in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)—concluded that Ripple’s Institutional Sales constituted offers or sales of investment contracts, but that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions did not. Order at 30. The Court also held that Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s individual sales were not offers or sales of investment contracts for “substantially the same reasons” stated in the Court’s analysis of Ripple’s Programmatic Sales. Id. at 27–28. The SEC subsequently moved to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court’s holdings on Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions. ECF No. 892. On October 3, 2023, the Court denied the SEC’s motion and set for trial the SEC’s claim that Larsen and Garlinghouse aided and abetted Ripple’s violations of Section 5 with regard to the Institutional Sales. ECF No. 917. By stipulation dated October 19, 2023, the SEC dismissed its pending claims against Larsen and Garlinghouse, obviating the need for a trial. ECF No. 921. Now before the Court is the SEC’s motion for remedies and entry of judgment on Ripple’s violations of Section 5 as to the Institutional Sales. The SEC seeks a final judgment against Ripple that (1) permanently enjoins it from future violations of Section 5 and from conducting an unregistered offering of XRP in Institutional Sales; (2) orders Ripple to pay $876,308,712 in disgorgement and $198,150,940 in prejudgment interest; and (3) orders Ripple to pay an $876,308,712 civil penalty. SEC Mem. at 1. Ripple contends that an injunction and disgorgement are unwarranted, and that any civil penalty should not exceed $10 million. See Ripple Opp., ECF No. 955. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [1] Ripple has also moved to seal certain documents filed in connection with the SEC’s motion. ECF No. 963; see ECF Nos. 964–68. The Court will address the sealing requests by separate order. [2] The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this matter as detailed in prior orders, see Order at 2–9, and, therefore, only summarizes those facts necessary for its decision here. [3] Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Order. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 1 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 1 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendant, Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”), alleging that Ripple engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), (c). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 430–35, ECF No. 46. On July 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (the “Order”). Order, ECF No. 874; see SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 3d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), motion to certify appeal denied, 697 F. Supp. 3d 126 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Now before the Court is the SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment. [1] SEC Mot., ECF No. 948; SEC Mem., ECF No. 949; Proposed Judgment, ECF No. 950. For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND[2] This case involves Defendants’ offer and sale of XRP, the native digital token of the XRP Ledger, a cryptographically secured ledger or “blockchain.” Order at 2. On December 22, 2020, the SEC commenced this action. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. An amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2021. ECF No. 46. As relevant here, the SEC alleged that Ripple engaged in three categories of unregistered XRP offers and sales: (1) Institutional Sales[3] under written contracts for which it received $728 million; (2) Programmatic Sales on digital asset exchanges for which it received $757 million; and (3) Other Distributions under written contracts for which it recorded $609 million in “consideration other than cash.” Id. at 15–16; see id. at 4–5. The SEC also alleged that Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, two of Ripple’s senior leaders, engaged in unregistered individual XRP sales from which they received at least $450 million and $150 million, respectively. Id. at 5, 16. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act, it is “unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, . . . to offer to sell, offer to buy or purchase[,] or sell” a “security” unless a registration statement is in effect or has been filed with the SEC as to the offer and sale of such security to the public. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), (c), (e). To prove a violation of Section 5, the SEC must show: (1) that no registration statement was filed or in effect as to the transaction, and (2) that the defendant directly or indirectly offered to sell or sold the securities (3) through interstate commerce. See SEC v. Cavanagh, 445 F.3d 105, 111 n.13 (2d Cir. 2006). At summary judgment, the Court—applying the Supreme Court’s test set forth in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)—concluded that Ripple’s Institutional Sales constituted offers or sales of investment contracts, but that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions did not. Order at 30. The Court also held that Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s individual sales were not offers or sales of investment contracts for “substantially the same reasons” stated in the Court’s analysis of Ripple’s Programmatic Sales. Id. at 27–28. The SEC subsequently moved to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court’s holdings on Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions. ECF No. 892. On October 3, 2023, the Court denied the SEC’s motion and set for trial the SEC’s claim that Larsen and Garlinghouse aided and abetted Ripple’s violations of Section 5 with regard to the Institutional Sales. ECF No. 917. By stipulation dated October 19, 2023, the SEC dismissed its pending claims against Larsen and Garlinghouse, obviating the need for a trial. ECF No. 921. Now before the Court is the SEC’s motion for remedies and entry of judgment on Ripple’s violations of Section 5 as to the Institutional Sales. The SEC seeks a final judgment against Ripple that (1) permanently enjoins it from future violations of Section 5 and from conducting an unregistered offering of XRP in Institutional Sales; (2) orders Ripple to pay $876,308,712 in disgorgement and $198,150,940 in prejudgment interest; and (3) orders Ripple to pay an $876,308,712 civil penalty. SEC Mem. at 1. Ripple contends that an injunction and disgorgement are unwarranted, and that any civil penalty should not exceed $10 million. See Ripple Opp., ECF No. 955. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com [1] Ripple has also moved to seal certain documents filed in connection with the SEC’s motion. ECF No. 963; see ECF Nos. 964–68. The Court will address the sealing requests by separate order. [2] The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this matter as detailed in prior orders, see Order at 2–9, and, therefore, only summarizes those facts necessary for its decision here. [3] Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Order.

SEC Seeks Over $1.7 Billion in Penalties from Ripple Labs for Alleged XRP Securities Law Violations

Is Layer One X's Delisting and Relisting Plan Too Little, Too Late?

የንብርብር አንድ X መሰረዝ እና እንደገና መዘርዘር እቅድ በጣም ትንሽ ነው፣ በጣም ዘግይቷል?

Layer One X-in Siyahıdan Çıxarılması və Yenidən Listinq Planı Çox Azdır, Çox Gecdir?

El pla de retirada i tornada a la llista de Layer One X és massa poc, massa tard?

¿El plan de exclusión y reincorporación de Layer One X es demasiado poco y demasiado tarde?

क्या लेयर वन एक्स की डीलिस्टिंग और रीलिस्टिंग योजना बहुत छोटी और बहुत देर से लाई गई है?

Èske Plan Delisting ak Relisting Layer One X a twò piti, twò ta?

Túl kevés, túl késő a Layer One X listáról való törlése és újbóli listázási terve?

Layer One X の上場廃止および再上場計画は、遅すぎ、不十分なのでしょうか?

¿Capa Uno Xpa Plan de Delistación y Relisting nisqa ancha pisillachu, ancha tardechu?

Är Layer One X:s plan för avnotering och åternotering för lite, för sent?

ናይ Layer One X መደብ ምውጋድን ዳግማይ ምዝርዛርን ኣዝዩ ውሑድ ድዩ፡ ኣዝዩ ደንጉዩ ድዩ?

Kế hoạch hủy niêm yết và niêm yết lại của Layer One X có quá ít và quá muộn không?

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts. Case Number: 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN Plaintiffs: Securities and Exchange Commission Defendant: Ripple Labs, Inc. Filing Date: August 07, 2024 Location: United States District Court Southern District of New York Table of Content Background Discussion I. Injunctive Relief
II. Disgorgement
III. Civil Penalties Conclusion About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Case Number: 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN Case Number: Plaintiffs: Securities and Exchange Commission Plaintiffs: Defendant: Ripple Labs, Inc. Defendant: Filing Date: August 07, 2024 Filing Date: Location: United States District Court Southern District of New York Location: Table of Content Background Background Discussion I. Injunctive Relief II. Disgorgement III. Civil Penalties I. Injunctive Relief I. Injunctive Relief II. Disgorgement II. Disgorgement III. Civil Penalties III. Civil Penalties Conclusion Conclusion About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com

Court Orders Ripple to Stop Selling XRP, Imposes $125 Million Penalty

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 5 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150 . The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. $125,035,150 SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com

Ripple Hit with $125 Million Fine in SEC Lawsuit

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 4 of 5. III. Civil Penalties A. Legal Standard The SEC is also authorized to seek the imposition of civil monetary penalties, which serve “the dual goals of punishment of the individual violator and deterrence of future violations.” Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Courts can impose penalties in civil injunctive actions not to exceed the greater of: (i) the gross pecuniary gain to a defendant as a result of the violation, or (ii) a specified amount per violation, depending on whether the violation falls in the first, second[,] or third penalty tier.” SEC v. Bajic, No. 20 Civ. 07, 2023 WL 6289953, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2); 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)). A court may impose a first-tier penalty for any violation of the Exchange or Securities Acts; a second-tier penalty if the violation “involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement”; and a third-tier penalty if, in addition to meeting the second-tier requirements, the “violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id. (citations omitted). Because “[t]he term ‘violation’ is not defined by the statutory scheme,” courts have discretion to determine the unit of violation for the purposes of imposing civil penalties under the tier method. SEC v. Fowler, 6 F.4th 255, 264 (2d Cir. 2021); see id. at 265. Although gross pecuniary gain or “the tier determines the maximum penalty, . . . the actual amount of the penalty [is] left up to the discretion of the district court.” SEC v. Kern, 425 F.3d 143, 153 (2d Cir. 2005). In determining the appropriate penalty, courts may consider factors including: (1) the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the degree of the defendant’s scienter; (3) whether the defendant’s conduct created substantial losses or the risk of substantial losses to other persons; (4) whether the defendant’s conduct was isolated or recurrent; and (5) whether the penalty should be reduced due to the defendant’s demonstrated current and future financial condition. SEC v. Rajaratnam, 918 F.3d 36, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also id. at 45 (noting that the list is not exhaustive); cf. Fowler, 6 F.4th at 266 (noting that the Circuit has not held that “the civil penalty for a securities fraud offense needs to be proportional to the disgorgement amount”). The Court may also consider “the extent to which other aspects of the relief and/or judgment issued in this matter will have the desired punitive effect.” SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d 552, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2011). B. Application The SEC asks the Court to impose a penalty of $876,308,712, equal to the net profits it calculates for the Institutional Sales. SEC Mem. at 23. Ripple argues that a penalty of no more than $10 million, or “about [redacted] of Ripple’s actual gross revenues . . . from pre-Complaint Institutional Sales,” is appropriate. Ripple Opp. at 30 (citation omitted). The Court finds that a first-tier penalty is appropriate in this case, which involves no allegations of “fraud, deceit, [or] manipulation,” and no conclusively established “deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(B); see supra Part I.B. Although Ripple’s gross pecuniary gain from the Institutional Sales sets a higher statutory ceiling, the Court finds that the tier-analysis method more closely tailors the penalty to the scope of Ripple’s actual wrongdoing than the parties’ (virtually) all-or-nothing requests. As to the amount of the penalty, the Court has discussed the second and fourth Rajaratnam factors, which overlap with the factors relevant to injunctive relief, above. See supra Part I.B. On the first factor, the egregiousness of Ripple’s conduct, there is no question that the recurrent, highly lucrative violation of Section 5 is a serious offense. However, this case does not involve allegations of fraud, misappropriation, or other more culpable conduct. Relatedly, as to the third factor, the SEC has not established that Ripple’s failure to register the Institutional Sales caused substantial losses (or the risk thereof) to investors. See supra Part II.B. And, on the fifth factor, Ripple does not contest that its current financial condition does not merit a reduced penalty. See Ripple Opp. at 28–29. Beyond the Rajaratnam factors, the Court considers that Ripple will not be ordered to pay disgorgement, which dictates in favor of a larger penalty to accomplish “the desired punitive effect.” Universal Exp., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d at 568. The Court finds, therefore, that a perviolation penalty at the first-tier maximum is appropriate. The final step is to define and count the “violations” involved in the Institutional Sales. Because Section 5’s registration requirement is “transaction-specific,” it follows that each unregistered transaction constitutes a separate violation of the statute. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d at 133; see also SEC v. Colonial Inv. Mgmt. LLC, 381 F. App’x 27, 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (affirming per-transaction penalties calculation). The SEC suggests that each of Ripple’s “1,700 relevant contracts” constitutes a separate violation. SEC Mem. at 23–24 n.8. Ripple responds that the “1,700 relevant contracts” figure includes “hundreds of contracts related to Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions,” which should be excluded. Ripple Opp. at 19 n.20. But, Ripple does not offer its own tabulation of the relevant contracts, and the SEC does not respond to Ripple’s contention in its reply brief. Based on the Court’s independent analysis of Ripple’s expert report summarizing the relevant contracts, see Schwarz Rep., ECF No. 582-7, the Court finds that 1,278 transactions violated Section 5, resulting in a civil penalty of $125,035,150. [10] Accordingly, the SEC’s request for a civil monetary penalty is GRANTED in part, and the Court will impose a penalty of $125,035,150. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [10]  The Court arrived at this figure by first tabulating the 1,278 “Sales Contracts” listed in Exhibit C of the expert’s report, which excluded “Programmatic Contracts,” “Service Contracts,” and “Other Contracts.” Schwarz Rep. at 80–124; see id. ¶¶ 18–55. The Court then determined the applicable penalty for each contract based on its date. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001, Tbl. I; Adjustments to Civ. Monetary Penalty Amounts, Release No. 6521, 2024 WL 111023 (Jan. 5, 2024) (“Release No. 6521”). For contracts entered into on or after November 2, 2015, the penalty is currently $115,231 per contract. Release No. 6521. For contracts entered into between March 6, 2013 and November 2, 2015, the penalty is $80,000 per contract. 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001, Tbl. I. And, for contracts entered into between March 4, 2009 and March 5, 2013, the penalty is $75,000 per contract. Id. For the four undated contracts, the Court applied the current inflation-adjusted penalty amount. Finally, the Court totaled the per-contract penalties to arrive at a civil penalty of $125,035,150. This sum is concededly an estimate of the maximum first-tier penalty; it is possible that the contracts listed in Exhibit C are either an incomplete or overinclusive list of Ripple’s Institutional Sales during the relevant period. Because neither party provided a more specific calculation, however, the Court believes that its estimate is an adequate approximation. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 4 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 4 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. Civil Penalties A. Legal Standard A. Legal Standard The SEC is also authorized to seek the imposition of civil monetary penalties, which serve “the dual goals of punishment of the individual violator and deterrence of future violations.” Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Courts can impose penalties in civil injunctive actions not to exceed the greater of: (i) the gross pecuniary gain to a defendant as a result of the violation, or (ii) a specified amount per violation, depending on whether the violation falls in the first, second[,] or third penalty tier.” SEC v. Bajic, No. 20 Civ. 07, 2023 WL 6289953, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2); 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)). A court may impose a first-tier penalty for any violation of the Exchange or Securities Acts; a second-tier penalty if the violation “involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement”; and a third-tier penalty if, in addition to meeting the second-tier requirements, the “violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id. (citations omitted). Because “[t]he term ‘violation’ is not defined by the statutory scheme,” courts have discretion to determine the unit of violation for the purposes of imposing civil penalties under the tier method. SEC v. Fowler, 6 F.4th 255, 264 (2d Cir. 2021); see id. at 265. Although gross pecuniary gain or “the tier determines the maximum penalty, . . . the actual amount of the penalty [is] left up to the discretion of the district court.” SEC v. Kern, 425 F.3d 143, 153 (2d Cir. 2005). In determining the appropriate penalty, courts may consider factors including: (1) the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the degree of the defendant’s scienter; (3) whether the defendant’s conduct created substantial losses or the risk of substantial losses to other persons; (4) whether the defendant’s conduct was isolated or recurrent; and (5) whether the penalty should be reduced due to the defendant’s demonstrated current and future financial condition. SEC v. Rajaratnam, 918 F.3d 36, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also id. at 45 (noting that the list is not exhaustive); cf. Fowler, 6 F.4th at 266 (noting that the Circuit has not held that “the civil penalty for a securities fraud offense needs to be proportional to the disgorgement amount”). The Court may also consider “the extent to which other aspects of the relief and/or judgment issued in this matter will have the desired punitive effect.” SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d 552, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2011). B. Application B. Application The SEC asks the Court to impose a penalty of $876,308,712, equal to the net profits it calculates for the Institutional Sales. SEC Mem. at 23. Ripple argues that a penalty of no more than $10 million, or “about [redacted] of Ripple’s actual gross revenues . . . from pre-Complaint Institutional Sales,” is appropriate. Ripple Opp. at 30 (citation omitted). The Court finds that a first-tier penalty is appropriate in this case, which involves no allegations of “fraud, deceit, [or] manipulation,” and no conclusively established “deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(B); see supra Part I.B. Although Ripple’s gross pecuniary gain from the Institutional Sales sets a higher statutory ceiling, the Court finds that the tier-analysis method more closely tailors the penalty to the scope of Ripple’s actual wrongdoing than the parties’ (virtually) all-or-nothing requests. As to the amount of the penalty, the Court has discussed the second and fourth Rajaratnam factors, which overlap with the factors relevant to injunctive relief, above. See supra Part I.B. On the first factor, the egregiousness of Ripple’s conduct, there is no question that the recurrent, highly lucrative violation of Section 5 is a serious offense. However, this case does not involve allegations of fraud, misappropriation, or other more culpable conduct. Relatedly, as to the third factor, the SEC has not established that Ripple’s failure to register the Institutional Sales caused substantial losses (or the risk thereof) to investors. See supra Part II.B. And, on the fifth factor, Ripple does not contest that its current financial condition does not merit a reduced penalty. See Ripple Opp. at 28–29. Beyond the Rajaratnam factors, the Court considers that Ripple will not be ordered to pay disgorgement, which dictates in favor of a larger penalty to accomplish “the desired punitive effect.” Universal Exp., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d at 568. The Court finds, therefore, that a perviolation penalty at the first-tier maximum is appropriate. The final step is to define and count the “violations” involved in the Institutional Sales. Because Section 5’s registration requirement is “transaction-specific,” it follows that each unregistered transaction constitutes a separate violation of the statute. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d at 133; see also SEC v. Colonial Inv. Mgmt. LLC, 381 F. App’x 27, 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (affirming per-transaction penalties calculation). The SEC suggests that each of Ripple’s “1,700 relevant contracts” constitutes a separate violation. SEC Mem. at 23–24 n.8. Ripple responds that the “1,700 relevant contracts” figure includes “hundreds of contracts related to Programmatic Sales and Other Distributions,” which should be excluded. Ripple Opp. at 19 n.20. But, Ripple does not offer its own tabulation of the relevant contracts, and the SEC does not respond to Ripple’s contention in its reply brief. Based on the Court’s independent analysis of Ripple’s expert report summarizing the relevant contracts, see Schwarz Rep., ECF No. 582-7, the Court finds that 1,278 transactions violated Section 5, resulting in a civil penalty of $125,035,150. [10] Accordingly, the SEC’s request for a civil monetary penalty is GRANTED in part, and the Court will impose a penalty of $125,035,150. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com [10]  The Court arrived at this figure by first tabulating the 1,278 “Sales Contracts” listed in Exhibit C of the expert’s report, which excluded “Programmatic Contracts,” “Service Contracts,” and “Other Contracts.” Schwarz Rep. at 80–124; see id. ¶¶ 18–55. The Court then determined the applicable penalty for each contract based on its date. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001, Tbl. I; Adjustments to Civ. Monetary Penalty Amounts, Release No. 6521, 2024 WL 111023 (Jan. 5, 2024) (“Release No. 6521”). For contracts entered into on or after November 2, 2015, the penalty is currently $115,231 per contract. Release No. 6521. For contracts entered into between March 6, 2013 and November 2, 2015, the penalty is $80,000 per contract. 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001, Tbl. I. And, for contracts entered into between March 4, 2009 and March 5, 2013, the penalty is $75,000 per contract. Id. For the four undated contracts, the Court applied the current inflation-adjusted penalty amount. Finally, the Court totaled the per-contract penalties to arrive at a civil penalty of $125,035,150. This sum is concededly an estimate of the maximum first-tier penalty; it is possible that the contracts listed in Exhibit C are either an incomplete or overinclusive list of Ripple’s Institutional Sales during the relevant period. Because neither party provided a more specific calculation, however, the Court believes that its estimate is an adequate approximation.

SEC Hands Ripple a $125M Reality Check

SEC হ্যান্ডস রিপল $125M রিয়েলিটি চেক পায়

SEC übergibt Ripple einen Realitätscheck über 125 Millionen Dollar

La SEC le da a Ripple una dosis de realidad de 125 millones de dólares

La SEC remet à Ripple un chèque de 125 millions de dollars

एसईसी ने रिपल को 125 मिलियन डॉलर का वास्तविकता परीक्षण दिया

SECがリップル社に1億2500万ドルの現実を突きつける

SEC Hands Ripple이 1억 2,500만 달러의 현실 확인을 받다

SEC Hands Ripple recebe uma verificação da realidade de US$ 125 milhões

SEC вручает Ripple проверку на реальность на сумму 125 млн долларов

SEC, Ripple'a 125 Milyon Dolarlık Gerçeklik Kontrolü Sağladı

SEC trao Ripple khoản tiền kiểm tra thực tế trị giá 125 triệu đô la

SEC 向 Ripple 发出 1.25 亿美元现实检查

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 5. II. Disgorgement A. Legal Standard In addition to injunctive relief, a district court may also order disgorgement, which “serves to remedy securities law violations by depriving violators of the fruits of their illegal conduct.” SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2014). Disgorgement is an equitable remedy, permissible only where it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 75 (2020). [6] Following Liu, the Second Circuit clarified the meaning of “victims” in SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2023). There, the defendant caused his company “to engage in three fraudulent securities offerings,” representing to investors that the company “would use the proceeds from the transactions to satisfy outstanding debts and for general corporate purposes.” Id. at 93. “Instead, he diverted over $7.3 million of the offering proceeds to his own private accounts.” Id. The district court determined that disgorgement was warranted, reasoning that the defrauded investors were victims of the defendant’s conduct because they were lied to, even if they “may not have been financially harmed” as a result of the lie. Id. at 97. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that “a ‘victim’ for purposes of § 78u(d)(5) is one who suffers pecuniary harm from the securities fraud.” Id. at 102. The Circuit explained that an equitable remedy is meant to “restore[] the status quo”—in the context of disgorgement, by “returning the funds to victims.” Id. at 103 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S. at 80, 88) (cleaned up). Allowing “defrauded investors who suffered no pecuniary harm . . . to receive the proceeds of disgorgement,” the Circuit reasoned, would “confer[] a windfall on those who received the benefit of the bargain.” Id. at 103. Therefore, for purposes of ordering disgorgement, it is not enough that investors are lied to and “thus denied the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment.” Id. at 105. “[O]ffending that right” does not result in pecuniary harm.” Id. (citing Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306, 315 (2023)) B. Application The parties dispute whether the Circuit’s decision in Govil bars disgorgement of Ripple’s profits from Institutional Sales. The Court finds that it does. The SEC contends that ordering disgorgement would not run afoul of Govil because Ripple’s violation of Section 5, via “entirely tainted transactions, caused pecuniary harm to investors.” SEC Mem. at 17. Specifically, the SEC argues that Ripple sold XRP to certain Institutional Buyers at “deep undisclosed discounts” as high as [redacted]. Id. at 18. Because Ripple failed to publicly register these discounted Institutional Sales, the SEC argues, “non-favored investors” were deprived of “the information they needed to determine whether Ripple was treating them worse and whether they could purchase [] XRP at a better price.” Id. The SEC estimates that if Ripple had disclosed its “significant discounts to other investors,” non-favored investors could have saved “potentially more than [redacted].” Id. at 19–20. The SEC further contends that the discounted sales caused pecuniary harm by “put[ting] downward pressure on the market price of XRP,” as investors who bought discounted XRP could sell for below-market prices and still profit. Id. at 20. Govil forecloses this argument. The SEC contends that Ripple “appears to have not uniformly disclosed the disparate prices and discounts offered” to Institutional Buyers. Id. at 18. The Circuit held, however, that “the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment” is not a property interest that can be vindicated through disgorgement. Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. As Ripple argues, many of the Govil investors would have likely been dissuaded from investing—or, at least, valued the shares at a lower price—had they known that the company’s founder intended to pocket the funds for his own use. See Ripple Opp. at 20. Yet the Circuit found that the pecuniary-harm requirement was not satisfied, as the district court acknowledged that “the investors received the return on the investment contemplated at the outset.” Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. Here, the SEC offers only speculative evidence that the Institutional Buyers did not “receive[] the return on the investment contemplated.” Id; see also id. at 104 n.16 (noting that “whether the investors actually suffered pecuniary harm would depend on the type of securities held, the terms of those securities, and when those securities were sold,” a level of detail missing from the record in Govil). The SEC’s [redacted] estimate of lost potential savings comes from an analysis conducted by SEC accountant Andrea Fox, who calculated “how much less Institutional Buyers in the aggregate would have paid for XRP if the best price offered to Institutional Buyers had been obtained by every Institutional Buyer.”[7] Fox Decl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 946. But, the SEC does not (and cannot) establish that Ripple would have, in fact, offered any additional discounts to investors had it complied with Section 5’s registration requirements. It is possible that some investors “could have demanded and potentially paid lower prices.” SEC Mem. at 18. Yet, it is at least equally possible that Ripple would have opted to offer fewer and smaller discounts overall. Cf. id. at 17 (explaining that “unregistered shares . . . are [generally] worth less” than their registered counterparts). The fact that some investors “may have been able to negotiate better deals if discounts [offered to others] were disclosed as required,” SEC Mem. at 19, does not establish that they suffered pecuniary harm by paying the sticker price. Cf. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 (2005) (noting that in fraud-on-the-market cases, “an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss”).[8] Relying on SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), the SEC also argues that disgorgement is appropriate because Ripple’s failure to disclose the discounts “tainted” each of the Institutional Sales. SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. In Ahmed, the investment-manager defendant “stole over $65 million” from his employer and ten portfolio companies, including by negotiating transactions in which he had an undisclosed conflict of interest. 72 F.4th at 390. The Second Circuit found that the conflicted transactions were “entirely tainted,” holding that the defendant was obligated to disgorge the full amount he received. Id. at 397. But the Circuit’s inquiry into the permissible amount of disgorgement sheds little light on the threshold question here: whether the SEC has shown pecuniary harm at all such that disgorgement is warranted. In Ahmed, which involved the defendant’s knowing misappropriation of millions of dollars from his employer, there was no question that the employer had suffered an economic loss. See id. at 390–91. Here, pecuniary harm is far less apparent. Because binding Circuit precedent precludes disgorgement based on the facts of this case, the SEC’s request for disgorgement and prejudgment interest[9] is DENIED. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [6] Six months after Liu, “Congress enacted § 78u(d)(7), which “gives the SEC the power to ‘seek’ and federal courts the power to ‘order’ the remedy of ‘disgorgement.’” SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2023) (discussing 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)). The Second Circuit has interpreted § 78u(d)(7) to limit disgorgement to the bounds established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu. Id. at 102 (citing SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379, 396 (2d Cir. 2023)). But see SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 338 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that “Section 78u(d) authorizes disgorgement in a legal—not equitable—sense.”). [7] Ripple separately moves to strike Fox’s declaration and supporting exhibits, arguing that they were filed late. ECF No. 951; see ECF Nos. 959, 960. In light of the Court’s finding that no disgorgement is permitted, the motion is DENIED as moot. [8] The SEC’s sole authority to the contrary, SEC v. iFresh, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 3200, 2024 WL 416709 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024), is an unpublished district court opinion that found (without analysis) the fact that stock prices were artificially inflated sufficient to establish pecuniary harm. Id. at *3; see SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. That case— involving a consent order—required the district court to accept the SEC’s allegations of stock price inflation as true. iFresh, Inc., 2024 WL 416709 at *3. [9] “[T]he amount on which a violator must pay prejudgment interest usually tracks the amount that the party is ordered to disgorge.” Contorinis, 743 F.3d at 308. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 3 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. Disgorgement A. Legal Standard A. Legal Standard In addition to injunctive relief, a district court may also order disgorgement, which “serves to remedy securities law violations by depriving violators of the fruits of their illegal conduct.” SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2014). Disgorgement is an equitable remedy, permissible only where it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 75 (2020). [6] Following Liu, the Second Circuit clarified the meaning of “victims” in SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2023). There, the defendant caused his company “to engage in three fraudulent securities offerings,” representing to investors that the company “would use the proceeds from the transactions to satisfy outstanding debts and for general corporate purposes.” Id. at 93. “Instead, he diverted over $7.3 million of the offering proceeds to his own private accounts.” Id. The district court determined that disgorgement was warranted, reasoning that the defrauded investors were victims of the defendant’s conduct because they were lied to, even if they “may not have been financially harmed” as a result of the lie. Id. at 97. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that “a ‘victim’ for purposes of § 78u(d)(5) is one who suffers pecuniary harm from the securities fraud.” Id. at 102. The Circuit explained that an equitable remedy is meant to “restore[] the status quo”—in the context of disgorgement, by “returning the funds to victims.” Id. at 103 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S. at 80, 88) (cleaned up). Allowing “defrauded investors who suffered no pecuniary harm . . . to receive the proceeds of disgorgement,” the Circuit reasoned, would “confer[] a windfall on those who received the benefit of the bargain.” Id. at 103. Therefore, for purposes of ordering disgorgement, it is not enough that investors are lied to and “thus denied the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment.” Id. at 105. “[O]ffending that right” does not result in pecuniary harm.” Id. (citing Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306, 315 (2023)) B. Application B. Application The parties dispute whether the Circuit’s decision in Govil bars disgorgement of Ripple’s profits from Institutional Sales. The Court finds that it does. The SEC contends that ordering disgorgement would not run afoul of Govil because Ripple’s violation of Section 5, via “entirely tainted transactions, caused pecuniary harm to investors.” SEC Mem. at 17. Specifically, the SEC argues that Ripple sold XRP to certain Institutional Buyers at “deep undisclosed discounts” as high as [redacted]. Id. at 18. Because Ripple failed to publicly register these discounted Institutional Sales, the SEC argues, “non-favored investors” were deprived of “the information they needed to determine whether Ripple was treating them worse and whether they could purchase [] XRP at a better price.” Id. The SEC estimates that if Ripple had disclosed its “significant discounts to other investors,” non-favored investors could have saved “potentially more than [redacted].” Id. at 19–20. The SEC further contends that the discounted sales caused pecuniary harm by “put[ting] downward pressure on the market price of XRP,” as investors who bought discounted XRP could sell for below-market prices and still profit. Id. at 20. Govil forecloses this argument. The SEC contends that Ripple “appears to have not uniformly disclosed the disparate prices and discounts offered” to Institutional Buyers. Id. at 18. The Circuit held, however, that “the right to make an informed decision when considering whether to make [an] investment” is not a property interest that can be vindicated through disgorgement. Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. As Ripple argues, many of the Govil investors would have likely been dissuaded from investing—or, at least, valued the shares at a lower price—had they known that the company’s founder intended to pocket the funds for his own use. See Ripple Opp. at 20. Yet the Circuit found that the pecuniary-harm requirement was not satisfied, as the district court acknowledged that “the investors received the return on the investment contemplated at the outset.” Govil, 86 F.4th at 105. Here, the SEC offers only speculative evidence that the Institutional Buyers did not “receive[] the return on the investment contemplated.” Id; see also id. at 104 n.16 (noting that “whether the investors actually suffered pecuniary harm would depend on the type of securities held, the terms of those securities, and when those securities were sold,” a level of detail missing from the record in Govil). The SEC’s [redacted] estimate of lost potential savings comes from an analysis conducted by SEC accountant Andrea Fox, who calculated “how much less Institutional Buyers in the aggregate would have paid for XRP if the best price offered to Institutional Buyers had been obtained by every Institutional Buyer.”[7] Fox Decl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 946. But, the SEC does not (and cannot) establish that Ripple would have, in fact, offered any additional discounts to investors had it complied with Section 5’s registration requirements. It is possible that some investors “could have demanded and potentially paid lower prices.” SEC Mem. at 18. Yet, it is at least equally possible that Ripple would have opted to offer fewer and smaller discounts overall. Cf. id. at 17 (explaining that “unregistered shares . . . are [generally] worth less” than their registered counterparts). The fact that some investors “may have been able to negotiate better deals if discounts [offered to others] were disclosed as required,” SEC Mem. at 19, does not establish that they suffered pecuniary harm by paying the sticker price. Cf. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 (2005) (noting that in fraud-on-the-market cases, “an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss”).[8] Relying on SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), the SEC also argues that disgorgement is appropriate because Ripple’s failure to disclose the discounts “tainted” each of the Institutional Sales. SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. In Ahmed, the investment-manager defendant “stole over $65 million” from his employer and ten portfolio companies, including by negotiating transactions in which he had an undisclosed conflict of interest. 72 F.4th at 390. The Second Circuit found that the conflicted transactions were “entirely tainted,” holding that the defendant was obligated to disgorge the full amount he received. Id. at 397. But the Circuit’s inquiry into the permissible amount of disgorgement sheds little light on the threshold question here: whether the SEC has shown pecuniary harm at all such that disgorgement is warranted. In Ahmed, which involved the defendant’s knowing misappropriation of millions of dollars from his employer, there was no question that the employer had suffered an economic loss. See id. at 390–91. Here, pecuniary harm is far less apparent. Because binding Circuit precedent precludes disgorgement based on the facts of this case, the SEC’s request for disgorgement and prejudgment interest[9] is DENIED. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com [6] Six months after Liu, “Congress enacted § 78u(d)(7), which “gives the SEC the power to ‘seek’ and federal courts the power to ‘order’ the remedy of ‘disgorgement.’” SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2023) (discussing 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7)). The Second Circuit has interpreted § 78u(d)(7) to limit disgorgement to the bounds established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu. Id. at 102 (citing SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379, 396 (2d Cir. 2023)). But see SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 338 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that “Section 78u(d) authorizes disgorgement in a legal—not equitable—sense.”). [7] Ripple separately moves to strike Fox’s declaration and supporting exhibits, arguing that they were filed late. ECF No. 951; see ECF Nos. 959, 960. In light of the Court’s finding that no disgorgement is permitted, the motion is DENIED as moot. [8] The SEC’s sole authority to the contrary, SEC v. iFresh, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 3200, 2024 WL 416709 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024), is an unpublished district court opinion that found (without analysis) the fact that stock prices were artificially inflated sufficient to establish pecuniary harm. Id. at *3; see SEC Reply at 9, ECF No. 961. That case— involving a consent order—required the district court to accept the SEC’s allegations of stock price inflation as true. iFresh, Inc., 2024 WL 416709 at *3. [9] “[T]he amount on which a violator must pay prejudgment interest usually tracks the amount that the party is ordered to disgorge.” Contorinis, 743 F.3d at 308.

Court Denies SEC's Request for $1 Billion in Disgorgement from Ripple

Court Grants SEC’s Injunction Against Ripple

Fraud, scandal, regulatory squabbling, and bankruptcy marked crypto's 14th year. 2023 may have been one brutal year in the industry, but ironically, it may still have been one of the sector's best years. cryptocurrency As macro conditions rally and Bitcoin bounces back, financial cops and entrepreneurs anticipate similar to the 2013 BTC-led bull market. This article looks back at the highlights of 2023 in anticipation of a possibly glamorous 2024. A Whirlwind Year For Crypto 2023 was ruthless, to say the least, with a cast of malefactors associated with the 2021 crypto boom meeting justice by and large. From Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) to Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and other less prominent individuals making all the bad press as US authorities flexed their muscles on crypto. Furthermore, the early teen industry still notched notable wins like Bitcoin's 160% surge. Industry players were overjoyed as courts judged in favor of crypto in two high-profile court cases (XRP and Coinbase). Moreover, there's pregnant anticipation regarding a long-awaited approval for a popular investment product in January, potentially bringing new investors. It was a year of cryptocurrency resiliency as digital assets benefited from cooling inflation and a growing economy. The year 2023 hit the road with an exuberant start, with the crypto market's entire market cap posting a $1.2 trillion gain (50%, according to AltCoinTrader). The gain somewhat reversed the damage occasioned by FTX's collapse, while Q2 saw the market take a breather to consolidate the gains. In Q2, a and other news about securities was the big news. The SEC approved Grayscale’s Bitcoin spot ETF approval and sparked a positive run in Q4. This pushed the crypto market cap to $1.65 trillion. 30% surge in Ethereum staking What Will 2023 Be Remembered For? BTC's Annual Low of $16,680 Bitcoin’s value slid from an all-time high of $69,000 in November 2021 to an all-time annual low of $16,800 in January 2023. This was a culmination of the sad events of 2022, like the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange that saw BTC's value continually decrease. Thankfully, Bitcoin later created a bullish candlestick that brought it close to $42,668 at the time of writing. https://twitter.com/dan_pantera/status/1734594848974315828?embedable=true Ripple Wins in SEC Case Ripple Labs Inc. scored a last July following a landmark ruling stating the firm never violated the federal securities law. US District Judge Analisa Torres's ground-breaking ruling that sent the XRP price surging by up to 75% and is considered a victory for the entire cryptocurrency industry is likely to galvanize other crypto firms toward battling the SEC amidst the ongoing regulatory confusion. partial victory against the SEC Later in October, the Bard Garlinghouse and executive Chairman Christian Larsen, making it a third consecutive win in the long-drawn legal tussle that had become a stain on Ripple and XRP. The SEC lawsuit that was filed in 2020 had accused Ripple Labs' executives of selling $1.3 billion in unregistered digital asset securities, with the pair personally accused of effecting at least $600 million in illicit securities sales. SEC dropped its case against Ripple CEO Journey towards the Approval of a Spot Bitcoin ETF The price of Bitcoin of $37,970 last October following BlackRock's taking initial steps towards an Ether Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF). BlackRock is among at least nine different asset management firms, including Valkyrie and WisdomTree, eagerly awaiting the SEC's approval of their desire to issue spot Bitcoin ETFs, which experts believe could happen . US-based investors can only buy Bitcoin futures ETFs from firms with futures contracts with plans to sell later at agreed-upon prices. The highly-anticipated Bitcoin spot ETFs awaiting SEC approval would enable users to invest in BTC directly and potentially make it accessible to the masses. scored an 18-month high in early 2024 SBF's High-Profile Trial After a , the highly-anticipated Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) case returned a guilty verdict. The prosecutors accused the former founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX of stealing and using billions of dollars belonging to his customers. Bankman-Fried may have maintained his innocence throughout the trial. However, the guilty verdict means he could earn . The sentencing is expected in March 2024. month-long trial up to 110 years in jail Bitcoin above $44K For the first time since April 2022, Bitcoin in early December. The digital asset that’s now trading at $42,643 brought the entire crypto market with it in its wake. That was a great achievement, considering it opened the year at less than $17,000. BTC's increasingly improving performance happens at a time when numerous respected Wall Street firms are awaiting the SEC's approval of their Bitcoin ETF application approvals. Analysts believe the SEC will likely approve the popular investment vehicle that tracks the digital asset's value and is expected to give traditional investors to crypto in a safe and regulated environment. crossed the $44,000 mark SEC against Binance and CZ Crypto billionaire Changpeng Zhao, the founder and CEO of Binance, was forced to step down after he pleaded guilty . According to the criminal charges filed by the SEC, both CZ and his firm, Binance, violated the Bank Secrecy Act. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) documents, CZ and Binance agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement. to 13 charges facing him https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1727063503125766367?embedable=true The against the world's largest crypto exchange by trade volume and its founder, accusing them of commingling billions of dollars of customers' funds and sending them to a Europe-based company controlled by CZ. According to the US securities watchdog, CZ and his exchange subverted "their controls" by allowing high-net-worth American investors to trade at their unregulated international exchange. According to the complaint, the accused used Binance.US as a shield for CZ and the parent company to retard law enforcement and insulate Binance. SEC had filed 13 charges in June 2023 NFTs are Coming Back There's every sign of the as we draw the curtains on 2023. Despite what appeared like prices hitting rock bottom, major NFT brands like are seeing renewed interest in their products from online retailers and brick-and-mortar stores. Moreover, established firms are trooping back to the NFT space, with brand building expected to become a significant driver of Web3 adoptions in 2024 resurgence of interest in NFTs Pudgy Penguins https://twitter.com/pudgypenguins/status/1659325632499572736?embedable=true While mainstream media may have written off NFTs following their dismal performance and poor demand, stores like Walmart and others are jostling to sell them alongside physical products. They could end up building stronger NFT brands. There's every indication that the next wave of viral NFT products could be somewhat different from the previous successful ones by focusing on value creation instead of speculation. Moreover, they could center on large quantities sold at more affordable prices and target a broader market. Some companies that successfully experimented with mass-market NFTs include Starbucks, Mike, and Reddit, to name a few. Summary of 2023 Once again, the cryptocurrency market is experiencing unprecedented growth. Every indication is pointing towards an inevitable Bull-Run. It’s, therefore, important for every crypto enthusiast to equip themselves with knowledge and insight so they can make informed decisions. Should everything hold constant, we can expect a fresh liquidity boost from institutional investors as banks and other large investors allocate portions of their assets under cryptocurrencies. As it was in 201, 2017, and 2021, the emergence of new crypto projects is likely to become the foundation of a recent surge of users in 2024 and 2025, with the main driver being the adoption of Web3 by large Web projects and introduce a new audience to the crypto sphere.

Crazy Crypto Year - The Most Notable Events Of 2023

In our we talked about some of the most popular crypto brands and services in different categories. They included exchanges, stablecoins, wallets, and foundations. Now, it’s time to learn more categories of crypto names and brands you should know. previous article, As we mentioned before, according to the , They include exchanges, funds, marketplaces, market research, supply chain management, mining, payment ramps, investments, wallets, security, e-sports, gaming, Metaverses, trading, smart contracts, identity, and much more. Let’s discover what else they can offer!\ research firm Golden there are over 11,000 crypto companies and projects worldwide. Development Companies Not every cryptocurrency project or their development is led by non-profits. Indeed, there are a lot of (for-profit) companies behind popular coins and other crypto products. Let’s see some of them. Ripple Labs This American company promotes itself as “the leading provider of crypto solutions for businesses.” It was founded in 2012 by Chris Larsen and Jed McCaleb, and , which specializes in international payments. It’s also widely known for its legal battle against the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This entity accused them of selling non-registered securities (XRP) in the country. it’s better known for the creation of one of the most popular coins to date, XRP (originally Ripple) Lightning Labs Lightning Network is a second-layer solution for faster, cheaper transactions via off-chain payment channels —and likely the first-ever layer-2 (secondary chain). It was designed for Bitcoin, but it also works in Litecoin and . Lightning Labs, founded in 2016 by Elizabeth Stark and Olaoluwa Osuntokun, , and actively promoting Lightning Network adoption. other altcoins is a key American developer of Lightning Network technologies, offering products like LND and Neutrino Blockstream This is a Canadian blockchain company founded in 2014 by its current leader, Adam Back (a cryptographer cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper). mainly on Bitcoin-related services, Blockstream also supports the development of the first cryptocurrency by funding several Bitcoin Core open-source developers. They work including the sidechain Liquid and their satellite network to make offline transactions worldwide. More firms Of course, there are way more crypto developers for-profit. We can mention EMURGO and IOHK (Cardano/ADA), Solana Labs (Solana/SOL), Polygon Technology (Polygon/MATIC), Ava Labs (Avalanche/AVAX), Protocol Labs (Filecoin/FIL), TrustToken (Stablecoin issuer), Anchorage Digital (Crypto Infrastructure for Business), Galaxy Digital Holdings (Crypto Asset Management), Block/Square (Crypto Payment Processing), Chainalysis (Security and Analytics), and Digital Currency Group (venture capital and owner of CoinDesk, Foundry, Genesis Trading, Grayscale Investments, and Luno). Crypto News Portals These are websites or platforms dedicated to providing up-to-date information and analysis about different tokens and the crypto industry. They offer news, market data, educational content, and insights. Some of the most renowned are: CoinDesk It was founded in 2013 by entrepreneur Shakil Khan, and eventually acquired by the Digital Currency Group. It provides extensive cryptocurrency news, market data, and event coverage. , and also for reporting first the infamous balance that led FTX Exchange to bankruptcy. It’s known for its international-attended annual event Consensus Bitcoin Magazine Established in 2012 by Mihai Alisie and Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum founder), is still an influential crypto publication. It was sold in 2014 to BTC Inc., an American company. Bitcoin Magazine It offers articles, insights, and educational content about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. CoinTelegraph It was established in 2013 by an international team, and it’s now based in the United States. offers a wide range of crypto news, interviews, analysis, and educational resources. Besides, The portal it’s available in eleven languages, including English, Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish. More portals Other popular crypto portals include Decrypt, CryptoSlate, NewsBTC, and CryptoPotato. These platforms provide a mix of news, analysis, market data, and educational content, catering to a diverse audience interested in cryptocurrency. You can also find more local crypto portals in every country, covering national news. Metaverses A crypto metaverse is a virtual, decentralized, and ledger-based environment where users can interact, create, play, and transact using digital assets within a shared, immersive, online space. You can have your own avatar on them, and this one could be a Non-Fungible Token (NFT). Decentraland Founded in 2017, Decentraland is an Ethereum-based metaverse. The creators, Ari Meilich and Esteban Ordano, originate from Argentina. . It also has its own native cryptocurrency, MANA. It offers a user-owned virtual world where users can buy, sell, and build on virtual lands (as NFTs) The Sandbox This crypto Metaverse was first a mobile game released in 2012 by the brand Pixowl. It was transformed into what it is today in 2021 by Animoca Brands. is now . It also offers customized avatars and has its own native coin, SAND. The Sandbox a 3D world based on Polygon where it’s possible to build your own games and NFTs without coding Alien Worlds It was released in 2020 by the firm Dacoco on the WAX blockchain. features six alien worlds where It’s also possible to host events and collect NFTs in the form of avatars, weapons, tools, and other items. This Metaverse explorers can go into missions, own digital lands, and mine Trilium (TLM). More crypto-verses Other notable crypto metaverses include CryptoVoxels, Somnium Space, and Upland. CryptoVoxels is an Ethereum-based virtual world for users to build and monetize spaces. Somnium Space is a VR-centric metaverse with a focus on social interactions. Upland merges the real world with digital ownership, allowing users to buy, sell, and trade virtual real estate. NFT Projects NFT projects, or Non-Fungible Token projects, create and sell unique digital assets that are indivisible and provably scarce on distributed networks. These tokens represent ownership of digital or physical items. Additionally, every project can offer unique features, experiences, and benefits to its owners. CryptoPunks This is likely the first-ever NFT collection, and it was released in 2017 by Larva Labs. All of them were for free initially, but now every piece is valued at over 60 ETH (around $92,880). The rarer units have been sold . It offers 10,000 unique 24x24 pixel art “punk” characters registered on Ethereum. given away for millions Axie Infinity Released in 2018 by the Vietnamese studio Sky Mavis, Players can collect, breed, train, and trade axies while earning rewards for doing it. The game has its own chain, Ronin, compatible with Ethereum. Currently, over 11.8 million axies, but only 422,830 are available to trade. it’s a play-to-earn battle game that features NFT creatures called “axies.” there are Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) This collection was released in 2021 by Yuga Labs. They’re meant to represent membership in an exclusive virtual club with social and utility benefits. is currently developing its own Metaverse about it, called “Otherside.” It offers 10,000 “bored apes” images with unique traits, registered as NFTs on Ethereum. Yuga Labs A rain of NFTs There are innumerable NFTs at this point since practically anyone with Internet access can make their own. According to , The most popular projects include CrypToadz, Art Blocks, Pudgy Penguins, Azuki, Meebits, and CloneX. Now, remember that if you want to make your own NFTs, and sell them without coding in the Obyte-based NFT marketplace CryptoThings. NonFungible there were at least 3,724 NFT sales in the last week, amounting to over $2.5 million. it’s possible to create them Bonus: A Blacklist Some names are also important to remember but in a bad way. Seasoned crypto enthusiasts and analysts will talk about them a lot, so you also need to know what happened. Here we have several failed and/or infamous crypto projects that caused a lot of harm to the market in the past. Mt. Gox Founded in 2010 by Jed McCaleb and Mark Karpelès, Mt. Gox was a Japanese cryptocurrency exchange, and the largest of its time worldwide. It failed in 2014 due to serious security breaches, resulting in a massive loss of customer funds and insolvency. Terra (LUNA) Terra, created by Daniel Shin and Do Kwon in South Korea, was launched in 2018. Technically, it still exists, but its native stablecoin, Terra USD (UST), failed big in 2022. . A lot of people worldwide suffered the consequences, as their investments and savings in these coins were suddenly erased. Do Kwon was arrested in 2023. UST's price plummeted to $0.1 (90% less than its peg) in May, dragging LUNA (the native currency of Terra) down with it FTX Founded by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and Gary Wang in 2017, FTX was the third-largest cryptocurrency exchange globally in 2021. Now, it's nothing but an infamous name. They faced serious liquidity issues to the point of going bankrupt in November 2022. and a lack of financial controls within the company. SBF was arrested in the US. Bankruptcy proceedings revealed massive debts (of around $3 billion), misuse of customer funds, For more blacklisted crypto names, you can check our list of the . Now, if you want to start in this complex world without complications, remember that you can download the user-friendly . Payments, smart contracts, chatbots, exchanges, and more are waiting for you without coding! biggest crypto crashes Obyte wallet Featured Vector Image by Freepik

Crypto for Beginners: Must-Know Brands and Names —Part 2

নতুনদের জন্য ক্রিপ্টো: অবশ্যই ব্র্যান্ড এবং নাম জানতে হবে —পর্ব 2

Krypto für Anfänger: Marken und Namen, die man kennen muss – Teil 2

Cripto para principiantes: marcas y nombres imprescindibles: parte 2

Crypto pour les débutants : marques et noms incontournables – Partie 2

शुरुआती लोगों के लिए क्रिप्टो: अवश्य जानें ब्रांड और नाम—भाग 2

初心者のための暗号通貨: 知っておくべきブランドと名前 — パート 2

초보자를 위한 암호화폐: 꼭 알아야 할 브랜드 및 이름 —2부

Criptografia para iniciantes: marcas e nomes imperdíveis - Parte 2

Криптовалюта для начинающих: бренды и названия, которые необходимо знать — часть 2

Yeni Başlayanlar İçin Kripto: Bilinmesi Gereken Markalar ve İsimler - 2. Bölüm

Tiền điện tử cho người mới bắt đầu: Những thương hiệu và tên phải biết —Phần 2

加密货币初学者：必须了解的品牌和名称 - 第 2 部分

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Introduction Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”) and two of its senior leaders, Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, alleging that Defendants engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 430–35, ECF No. 46. The SEC also alleges that Garlinghouse and Larsen aided and abetted Ripple’s Section 5 violations. Id. ¶¶ 9, 436–40. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 824, 836; see also ECF Nos. 621, 625, 639, 642.[1] For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [1] Portions of the briefs, Rule 56.1 statements, and other documents discussed in this order were filed under seal or redacted. See ECF No. 819 (granting in part and denying in part the parties’ and third parties’ motions to seal). These materials are “judicial documents” because they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). To the extent that information in these documents is disclosed in this order, the privacy and business interests that justified their sealing or redaction are outweighed by “the public’s right of access to [information] necessary to understand the basis for court rulings.” Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League, 903 F.3d 185, 193 n.2 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 119 F. Supp. 3d 152, 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Continue Reading . here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN retrieved on September 7, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox

SEC v. Ripple: SEC Brings Lawsuit Against Ripple and Two of Its Senior Leaders

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 2 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here BACKGROUND[2] I. Factual Background A. Development of the XRP Ledger and the Founding of Ripple In 2011 and early 2012, Arthur Britto, Jed McCaleb, and David Schwartz developed the source code for a cryptographically secured ledger, or a “blockchain,”[3] which is now known as the XRP Ledger. SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 11, ECF No. 842; see also ECF No. 668. They aimed to create a faster, cheaper, and more energy-efficient alternative to the bitcoin blockchain, the first blockchain ledger which was introduced in 2009. Id. ¶¶ 4, 12. When the XRP Ledger launched in 2012, its source code generated a fixed supply of 100 billion XRP. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. XRP is the native digital token of the XRP Ledger, and the XRP Ledger requires XRP to operate. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. Each unit of XRP is divisible into one million “drops,” and each unit or drop of XRP is fungible with any other unit or drop. Defs. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 17–18, ECF No. 835; see also ECF No. 663. In 2012, Britto, Defendant Larsen, and McCaleb founded Ripple.[4] Id. ¶ 41; SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 32. Larsen became Ripple’s CEO, a position he held until December 2016. Defs. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 41. Of the 100 billion XRP generated by the XRP Ledger’s code, the three founders retained 20 billion for themselves (including 9 billion for Larsen) and provided 80 billion XRP to Ripple. Id. ¶ 15; SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 21. The founders did not sell any XRP before the launch of the XRP Ledger, and Ripple never owned the 20 billion XRP retained by the three founders. SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 20, 22. Since its founding, Ripple’s mission has been to realize an “Internet of Value” by using technology to facilitate the transfer of value across the internet. Id. ¶ 35. Specifically, Ripple “seeks to modernize international payments by developing a global payments network for international currency transfers.” Id. For instance, Ripple developed a software product called RippleNet, which allows customers to clear and settle cross-border financial transactions on mutually agreed upon terms. Id. ¶ 41. One feature of RippleNet is known as “on demand liquidity” (“ODL”). Id. ¶ 45. ODL facilitates cross-border transactions by allowing customers to exchange fiat currency (for example, U.S. dollars) for XRP and then the XRP for another fiat currency (for example, Mexican pesos). Id. ¶ 46; Defs. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 740. Like ODL, some, but not all, of Ripple’s products and services rely on the XRP Ledger and XRP. SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 44. The XRP Ledger is based on open-source software; anyone can use the ledger, submit transactions, host a node to contribute to the validation of transactions, propose changes to the source code, or develop applications that run on the ledger. Id. ¶¶ 52, 54. Other developers have built software products that use the XRP Ledger, such as payment-processing applications. Id. ¶ 59. Ripple has also funded companies as part of its “Xpring” initiative to incentivize the development of other use “cases” on the XRP Ledger. Id. ¶¶ 58–59. [2] The facts in this section are taken from the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements, counterstatements, and responses, unless otherwise noted. Disputed facts are so noted. Citations to a paragraph in a Rule 56.1 statement also include the opposing party’s response. “[W]here there are no citations[,] or where the cited materials do not support the factual assertions in the [s]tatements, the Court is free to disregard the assertion.” Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (alteration omitted). [3] A blockchain is an electronically distributed database or ledger “shared among a computer network’s nodes.” See Adam Hayes, Blockchain Facts: What Is It, How It Works, and How It Can Be Used, Investopedia (updated Apr. 23, 2023), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.asp/. A blockchain is a system for recording information. Each transaction is recorded as a “block” of data on the digital ledger, which is connected to the blocks before and after it. SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 1, ECF No. 842. Blockchains are typically recorded across a distributed network of computers. Id. ¶ 2. [4] Ripple was originally named NewCoin, Inc. and incorporated under California law. SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶ 33. It was then renamed OpenCoin, Inc. in October 2012. Id. In 2013, the company was renamed Ripple Labs, Inc., and in 2014, it was incorporated under Delaware law. Id. In this order, the Court shall refer to the company as Ripple, even when referring to its forerunners, NewCoin and OpenCoin. Continue Reading . here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN retrieved on September 7, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox

SEC v. Ripple: XRP's Founders Wanted to Create a Faster, Cheaper Alternative to Bitcoin Blockchain

*Note: a SWOT analysis is an evaluation of the fundamental, operational, technical, social, economic, and even to some degree administrative elements of a project. This is not a model to be used for trading purposes. (NFA, DYOR) Composed of four elements, and , a SWOT analysis framework provides excellent insight for establishing a high-level understanding of the state of a project’s well-being through the lens of a birds-eye view. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats It can help formulate decisions around which areas require more attention, set performance goals, and organize a foundational understanding of where a project is headed. Rarely (if ever) used in crypto, it is time to apply this timeless method of evaluation to the digital asset space. Today, the most controversial OG crypto project, full of legal shenanigans, enterprise-grade technology, and die-hard community members, will get a SWOT. Ripple ( ) XRP , 💪 Strengths (Internal) (Helpful) 1. XRPL (Ledger) is Non-Turing Complete The Ledger used by Ripple is actually structurally reminiscent of Bitcoin and diametrically different from Ethereum. The XRPL is not able to support arbitrary computations or smart contracts; this was a design choice deliberately made by Ripple Labs in order to guarantee a higher level of stability and security for the network. By laser-purposing XRPL for a specific type of transaction (payments), the inherent negative externalities and uncertainties around smart contracts are avoided. 2. Deterministic Fees Something very unusual in the crypto landscape is stability; be it price, fees, user count, or any other metric, crypto is notorious for its volatility. Ripple’s ledger is the first of its kind to offer a model for fees that are set at 10 “drops” which translates to (1/100,000) of an XRP. With a predictable fee structure, a much more effective payment system can be built and a higher degree of transaction confidence would be experienced by users. This is in stark contrast to the tranny of Etheruem’s gas fees which are ridiculously hard to calculate and have historically spiked upwards into the hundreds of dollars. 3. Transaction Burn Mechanism Every single transaction on XRPL demands that a tiny portion of the token supply is burned. While the exact amount can vary, the base requirement is 10 drops or 0.00001 XRP, which has so far averaged out to somewhere between 5,000–10,000 XRP being burned per day (with massive outlier spikes, of course). The presence of the Burn mechanism exudes constant delayed pressure on upkeeping the token’s value as well as deterring network spam. Thus far, >11,000,000 XRP has been burned since inception; which is insignificant when considering how long it has been and how much more tokens still need to make it into circulation. 4. Supply Distribution Mechanism Another novel design around the token’s economics from Ripple labs. Set at a 100 Billion XRP max supply and with ~54% already in circulation, there are another >~46 Billion tokens that need to make their way to market; how this happens is arguably balanced. The non-circulating supply is locked in an escrow account that cannot be forced open; every month, 1 Billion tokens are unlocked/vested to the Ripple foundation, and the foundation has to distribute those tokens within the month. If they do not, the excess tokens are returned back to the escrow wallet, and the cycle repeats itself. This will happen indefinitely until all tokens are in circulation. 5. XLS-20 In October of 2022, Ripple released the XLS-20 standard framework, which brought NFTs to the XRPL ecosystem. Given that the overall potential market size of NFTs eclipses that of fungible assets, new vectors of value creation/retention and innovation are now possible on XRP. Since launch, a multitude of new communities has arrived on-chain, bringing with them an activity that has (proportionately) outperformed all other network metrics in 2023. 6. Built-in CLOB Any financial/monetary system requires the presence of a venue to conduct trade; within the world of crypto, these venues are DEXs. XRPL has a CLOB (Central Limit Order Book) decentralized exchange built in that facilities trade of cryptos, tokens, and NFTs. The CLOB model is much more appealing to large traditional financial institutions (than the crypto industry’s more common AMM) because it is what they have been using historically. The CLOB is also a single point that aggregates all liquidity, providing a higher degree of depth and lower slippage with high control over the order types and their granularity. 7. Technological Developments Ripple is constantly developing reliable, enterprise-grade technologies that keep up with the standards floating around the crypto industry, as well as those that are demanded/required by large traditional organizations and governments to operate. Currently, there is a pipeline of innovation as follows: an AMM being developed as per the XLS-30, Hooks system that will allow for semi-smart contract programmability (similar to the conditional scripts currently being used in the Bitcoin ecosystem), a Multi-chain ecosystem that leverages a variety of scaling solutions including the use of the EVM and sidechains, new identity solutions, XLS standards for off-chain transactions and improvements in the programming language used, among other things. 😞 Weaknesses (Internal) (Harmful) 1. Destination Tag System While this is a novel design that does have its merits within legacy financial circles, and it is not present in other crypto projects, it’s not one that is highly regarded by crypto natives. XRP utilizes a tracking/ownership account system where a single address has tags that allow it to manage funds on behalf of other people. Imagine a centralized exchange that has one address on XRPL and that one address receives/manages all the XRP balances of other users. Where on Bitcoin or Ethereum, every user has their own address, on Ripple’s Ledger, one address can become a bank that manages the XRP funds of other people, creating micro-hierarchies/federations within the network itself. This is potentially a positive for users that do not want to deal with the headaches associated with self-sovereignty but a red flag for the freedom maximalists. 2. PoA (Proof-of-Association) Using their own consensus model that does not have transactional or block reward incentives arouses suspicion, what does somebody have to gain by joining? Part of the argument here is that the burning mechanism will ultimately drive the value accrual for the nodes. This might prove to be a valid model that appeals to a grade of market participants who have a radically more developed psychological understanding than I might; however, from the lens of a crypto native, this does not seem appealing to newer/less capitalized actors and would translate to another model where the elites are able to secure ownership while users must just blindly trust their associations. 🧐 Opportunities (External) (Helpful) 1. SEC Court Case Everybody in the industry has heard about the recent outcome of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres. Obviously, this is far from winning any war, but this has become the first signal of intellectual clarity from a regulatory entity. Granted, her ruling is very minute and only addresses the transactions pertaining to XRP taking place between retail investors on exchange venues, still leaving a legal gap around the sales of XRP from Ripple to private investors through the use of contracts as security transactions. Nevertheless, when looking over the long term, if Ripple does manage to pull this one off, survive the legal bashing, and continue its existence, this will be an anchoring precedent for not just XRP but for the entire crypto industry. By bolstering the industry from the legal side, XRP will become a household name and forever be honored as a maverick. 2. Support from Many Other Projects When launched, Ripple was like an ugly duckling that constantly caught heat from crypto maxis and projects about its centralization. After a decade (yes, Ripple has been around for more than 10 years now), that clamor has been more-or-less shut down, and everybody has rallied behind Ripple in support of them overcoming the legal issues they are so bravely fighting. 3. Working with ~20 Countries on CBDCs While CBDCs are the antithesis of crypto, their arrival into the world economy is neigh but inevitable. Here we see the power of Ripple’s brand and legendary team putting in the footwork and developing relationships with a multitude of nations to leverage XRPL for the issuance of their CBDCs. Some of the known countries include Palau, Colombia, and Montenegro. 😳 Threats (External) (Harmful) 1. SEC Court Case This element is both an opportunity if won and also a constant looming threat if things go really undesirably. In the event that XRP completely loses its court case (even though this is unlikely given the legal system’s ability to appeal basically indefinitely) that would cause crippling damage to both XRP and the industry as a whole. While this does only pertain to the jurisdictions of the US (a project as intelligent and well-resourced as Ripple, would likely find a way to continue existing outside of US oversight); having the US market is an enormous/outsized portion of the world’s money. Takeaway: Ripple is an absolute Powerhouse. They are a beacon of quality and the center of attention for all those watching the regulatory developments around crypto within the US. The project is obviously ultra-high quality and the people working behind it are world class. The technology of the project and the finesse with which it is developed (in regard to the overall finance and technology sectors) is something that many new-age projects should be learning from. Had there been no legal issues facing Ripple, it would be feasible to consider that it would have been much further along; at the same time, seeing its relentless development (business and technology) while juggling the obnoxious legal system gives them the right to own a permanent place in the digital industry (which they already have secured). Conclusion: I was actually one of the anti-ripple people back when I first got involved in crypto. Much of it was my own immaturity, lack of understanding, and desire to virtue signal my moral alignment with decentralization. Since then, and especially in light of the XRP vs SEC combat that began in 2020, my stance has changed. First and foremost, the very meaning of decentralization and its application to crypto/finance has now become much more concrete; projects don't have to be decentralized; the industry does; by virtue of allowing anybody to propose anything, decentralization is present; shutting out another participant because their system is “centralized” is unwise; freedom of choice is what we seek. Ripple will be a name that becomes synonymous with legacy giga-corporations such as Blackrock, Microsoft, and the such (I'm not saying they are the same type of companies; I'm just saying they will be equally important in their own right). Would I invest in XRP? Sheesh. Let me put it this way; Right now, today, No. I believe there is one more strong selloff ahead for the overall industry, and the recent price action is just overhyped money sloshing around (not new money coming in). However, at the right price point (maybe ~$0.50, yes, absolutely, I’d grab another bag). Something in the 1%–3% range of a crypto portfolio allocation is not out of the picture. If you know something that I don’t or feel as though I might have missed anything worth noting, please do share, I would tremendously appreciate some feedback. Thank you so much for reading, I hope this serves you well on your journey. Live long and prosper 🥂 Also published here

The Ripple (XRP) SWOT Analysis

দ্য রিপল (XRP) SWOT বিশ্লেষণ

Die SWOT-Analyse von Ripple (XRP).

El análisis DAFO de Ripple (XRP)

Analyse SWOT de l'ondulation (XRP)

रिपल (एक्सआरपी) एसडब्ल्यूओटी विश्लेषण

リップル (XRP) SWOT 分析

리플(XRP) SWOT 분석

O Ripple (XRP) Análise SWOT

Dalgalanma (XRP) SWOT Analizi

Phân tích SWOT của Ripple (XRP)

瑞波币 (XRP) SWOT 分析

I recently sat down with Harris Bricken Attorney and web3 legal expert, , for a discussion about the controversial . (This interview has been abridged for the ease of the readers) .Read on! Jonathan Bench SEC V Ripple case It's good to once again sit down with you for a discussion about cryptocurrency and other related matters affecting the industry. I would like you to tell us about the background story of the SEC V Ripple case. I have been in the crypto space for a couple of years now. I came as an international transactions lawyer kind of understanding where things are coming from. So my my perspective is pretty broad. This decision on Ripple is what everyone had been waiting for a long time. Ever since I have been paying attention to the industry very closely, I've been waiting to see, you know, how the kind of attack the SEC would take against Ripple and what the court would agree to. And you got to keep in mind that this is a low-level court decision. There's still a Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and this covers all of the financial headquarters, but what we think in the US so very significant in terms of the geography of the decision. And there's also a lot a long way to go from here. So the background is simple. For those of you that don't know a lot about it or at least have been following it kind of tangentially like I was from the early days, it's a pretty typical scenario where we have founders who took the Bitcoin code, wanted to improve it and kind of replace Bitcoin and make it more functional. So they developed, they developed the token, they have a smart contract Ledger and they kept about 20% of the minted tokens for themselves and then contributed that 80% of the remaining tokens to Ripple Labs entity to develop software to help manage the international payment transactions. It's pretty typical from what I'm seeing in the crypto space. A lot of companies have been issuing tokens that compete with Bitcoin in some way and there's really not a lot of functionality. You know that's kind of where we're sitting in terms of understanding where this case sits in the precedent and this is a very early project, right? They started doing this around 2012. So in terms of the US legal system, ten years is a long time for a project to be out running before getting any kind of legal action against, and of course it's taking a couple of years for the court to really come down with this decision. We have a free-floating token competing with Bitcoin and a lot of adoption. The market cap for XRP's is fairly insane in terms of overall value. So that's kind of where I'm seeing this in terms of where it fits in the industry. https://youtu.be/Q-nNSG8zNT8?embedable=true Do you consider the SEC’s action to be grandstanding or scapegoating? I have a little bit of background on this. I have worked for a summer during law school for FINRA and FINRA is kind of the principal's office for the securities industry. So anybody with a trading license, all the firms you'll get regulated by FINRA, and FINRA has the same kind of mandate to you know their mandate is investor protection, market integrity. And so I feel like that's the mantra that we're talking about here is how close, how close to these cases hue to that ethos of making sure the market is as clear and open as possible, that investors are protected, know what they're getting into. And I feel like there is some overreaching by the SEC in terms of not being willing to engage very deeply and looking at tokens beyond those tokens that are trying to act as pure currencies. So like I said here with XRP, it seems to be very much focused on cryptocurrency. So from my perspective, the way that the SEC came down, the way the court decided this, I felt like it was fairly consistent with my understanding of how I thought it would come down where we are just dealing with something that looks like a traditional currency. You know, a lot of projects between then and now have tried to add a lot more functionality. We have a lot more utility tokens. We have things that could be classified as security tokens, but there are a lot more complicated than traditional security tokens we have. We have this 4th prong of the Howie test where it's really interesting. You know this case is fairly consistent with the way I've been advising my clients and others who I have  been talking to along the way. This looks and feels like security to a large degree to me. And of course, the court didn't get to all of the nuances that we want. The court’s holding is limited to the actual facts of the case and so if you read the footnotes you'll see kind of read them as I did and feel a little unsatisfied because we want the court to give us opinions on them. How Has XRP as a cryptocurrency failed the Howey Test? The Howie test is an old Supreme Court case that looks at what an investment contract is. That's kind of standard in the US parlance when we're talking about securities. When we're talking about investment contracts traditionally,  they kind of get pushed together. And so we have 4 prongs. It has to be an investment of money or other consideration in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits derived solely from the efforts of others. So typically I look at the fourth prong. What is being done in terms of the effort? If I give you a pile of money or crypto and you have a project that seems pretty clear I'm relying on you to do all of the work. The difference in the decentralized world is we have protocols that allow input in all kinds of different ways and so we don't have that guidance yet in terms of where the lines were and how much effort.  You know is it a 50-50 effort. If I'm doing less than 5% of the overall effort for the organization or the project, does that mean that I'm primarily relying on someone else's efforts or how much do I have to contribute? So I think about this in the context of DAO, especially because DAOs have 1000 members but everyone votes on every decision through the smart contract protocol. To me, that looks like everyone's participating. You know there are a lot of traditional companies where people will just have passive investor seed or a board observer seat, maybe they won't even vote or they will have a voting interest on the board and it's a shareholder going to have a vote anyway. So there are a lot of different nuances for this and so I think. Is it a great illustration for when this digital world that we're in and we're building an intersection of in a very bad way, very unsatisfying way with legal precedent that's been around for decades. Utah has done a great job and Rob Lam is a close friend of mine and mentor in this space. Yeah, and he was instrumental. I could see his hands in in the Utah DAO legislation that was passed earlier this year and will go into effect on January 1, 2024. So I see that as some of the most forward-looking legislation that I've read across the world. A lot of the current virtual asset service provider regimes for instance in the Caymans. They provide the framework and kind of general guidance. But I see the Utah DAO Act is really diving deep into the issues that matter. You can tell that the group that was put together by the Utah Blockchain Coalition helped advise the legislators on this Utah DAO Act. You can tell that they put a lot of thought into not just what the lawyers thought was important, but what the industry thinks is important. And practitioners of DAOs who have these issues are addressing a lot of issues wrapped around a DAO manager. And I feel like if the SEC and courts are looking for a model to address this new 4th prom, how does this new technology enable interaction with the 4th prong of the Howie test? Absolutely,it's a great model. I don't think it's going to be a cure-all because I'm sure there are things that were missed in Utah DAO  Act but I think it's much more forward-looking than any of the other legislation that I've seen in terms of addressing how much do the efforts of others matter and how big is the group of people that can be involved from a foundational stage of an enterprise. Because typically that's where the line is. You have a big difference between a founding team and then those who are added later as investors. So if you have a situation in doubt where you can marry those and have the founding team expanded to include 1000 to 2000 or 5000 people, what does that mean in terms of the capital they're putting at risk in the venture and putting it to the war chest of the DAO or whatever the project is going to be. So it may have to do with the timing. You know how early people get involved and maybe does will have to cut off after a certain period of time and say this DAO is now closed because everyone who is in at the early stage is considered a founder and everyone who comes in later is not. They're going to be considered investors and they're going to blow the project apart in terms of what a security is. So it doesn't mean the secondary trading could be limited significantly in those kinds of projects, but those that are planned from the beginning. I think could really have some legs to stand on. We're projecting out years now in terms of where the SEC and how the SEC would look at this and whether the courts would agree. But I think that it's more the creative way of looking at this and trying to decide how much capital can people put at risk safely. What, in your view, do you think is the right approach when it comes to in terms of regulating the crypto industry in the United States? Do you think that revelation by enforcement action is the way to go? It has done a lot of harm to the US industry. I don't think the SEC cares at this point about the crypto industry. You know it does not see it as a viable industry. I don't think that they've shown that it is a priority. I think they see it as a kind of stepchild of the greater securities industry. I have been in the industry for a couple of years now focused very heavily on the blockchain space and I've seen a lot of inquiries move from well maybe Wyoming DAO or a Delaware DAO using Delaware LLC code. We really need to look more seriously at offshore projects. And I say that it's accelerated over the last 12-18 months. Initially, you know a couple of years ago, everyone wanted to be in the US: they were looking at perhaps Colorado,UH Collective or Wyoming DAO and I'm getting those increased less frequently where even US-based projects are looking at saying we know that we will be subject to US jurisdiction in some degree want as much as possible to be outside of the US. That's been challenging for me in a good way I think because I've had to digest Singapore, Switzerland came in BI you know offshore jurisdictions that are that and I like to look at jurisdictions that are very forward thinking; those that are very technology-friendly and not those that are just kind of agnostic. Take Panama, for instance, where they don't apparently care about what's going on in the space and there are projects that flock to those kinds of jurisdictions. But I'm of the mind that projects that set up in jurisdictions that have a clear vast regime where they can point to and say we've we followed the regulations as far as we can and a lot of those vast regulatory guide, you know those guidelines are very clear or, at least, very well thought out And so I think the projects that are based in those jurisdictions will have a much better time interacting with the SEC than those that tried to go to jurisdictions where there is literally no governance at all. And they're just probably projecting up based on what they think will fly under the radar in those areas.

SEC v Ripple: Exclusive Interview With Web 3 Attorney, Jonathan Bench

Since the dawn of the blockchain in 2008, the idea of what’s possible within the crypto space has changed dramatically. There’s been an evolution from simple cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin to full-fledged DeFi applications, games, and more. But this evolution isn’t complete. “The cryptocurrency market is developing at an ever-increasing pace. Still, we are only at its early seed stage, where the foundations are laid and norms established.” Today, the crypto industry faces even more seismic shifts. Web3 is ushering in a myriad of changes in the way the blockchain is used for business, advertising, and recreation. Governments around the world are looking at ways to regulate various aspects of the industry. With a growing global eye on blockchain technology, one question is at the forefront of everyone’s mind: What lies ahead? While we don’t have a crystal ball that can peer into the crypto industry’s future, we can make some educated guesses by looking at the past. The USA’s Early Crypto Dominance It shouldn’t be a surprise that many of the crypto industry’s earliest pioneers and adopters hail from Silicon Valley. Major players like Andreessen Horowitz, Coinbase, and Ripple Labs all have roots there. And countless other influential voices have come from the US’s west coast. But this is only one reason why the United States has played such a dominant role in crypto’s story. The US is home to dozens of major corporations, the largest stock exchange in the world, and unparalleled financial and technological infrastructures. Plus, the country’s legal and regulatory environment tends to be friendly toward entrepreneurs and startups. In many ways, the United States was the perfect incubator for the blockchain. That’s the reason the vast majority of crypto projects were launched and targeted within the English-speaking world. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia were the dominant players in crypto. But all that began to change after the collapse of FTX. The Fall of FTX and the Rise of Crypto Regulations In the summer of 2022, FTX was riding high. Earlier that year, they’d made several headline-worthy announcements, including the creation of a $2 billion venture fund, plans to offer stock trading to their US customers, and the development of a gaming division. The future looked bright for the company and the crypto industry as a whole. But then, in November, things began to unravel. And by the middle of that month, the massive exchange and hedge fund has filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy. John J. Ray III, the CEO who was brought in as a liquidator, summed up just how bad things were when he said, “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.” And this was from someone who had also been involved in the bankruptcies of Enron and Nortel. FTX’s collapse sent shockwaves through the crypto industry. Governments around the world began looking more seriously at the possibility of introducing stricter regulations on cryptocurrencies and projects. And since FTX’s fall happened on the US’s watch, lawmakers there were even more eager to “do something.” While comprehensive crypto regulations haven’t been passed yet, uncertainty surrounding the future of crypto in the US has sent entrepreneurs and investors scurrying for other options. Many people who are interested in the crypto space are rethinking their plans for the US, eyeing South American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries instead. US Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) recently put the situation into perspective, saying, “The failure of the United States Congress to enact policy is pushing the industry to other countries. Europe is ahead of us in terms of its regulatory framework. Australia and the U.K. are getting ahead of us. Switzerland is far ahead of us.” According to Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple, the crypto industry already has a foot out of the door as they head for greener pastures overseas. While some voices in the industry are less confident in this geographical shift, noting the US’s history of being a technological and economic leader, there can be no doubt that rough waters lie ahead. Change is coming one way or another. Changes in the Crypto Industry Examining the history of blockchain use allows you to see that it followed something of a natural progression. It began with cryptocurrency, one of the most intuitive and obvious applications for a digital ledger. Once cryptocurrencies were a thing, it only made sense to form cryptocurrency exchanges. But it was the introduction of smart contracts by Ethereum in 2014 that made it possible to go beyond currencies to fully functional applications. This is when decentralized finance (DeFi) projects began to pop up. But the evolution didn’t stop there. There was simply too much potential in the blockchain to end in static assets. The gamification of the blockchain was an inevitability. Over the past year or two, the crypto industry has seen an explosion of growth from the GameFi side of the crypto world. This can clearly be seen from data provided by Bitmedia, one of the blockchain industry’s leading advertising networks. **“Until 2022, the top three advertising campaign niches were crypto exchanges, NFT metaverse games, and gambling betting projects. Since then, the number of GameFi and gambling betting projects has dramatically increased, rising to the very top of the charts.”
\ The following chart reveals just how much of a shift the industry has undergone over the past year. Beginning in 2023, crypto exchanges have swapped places with gambling projects, dropping from 35% to 20% of ad placements. Gambling projects, on the other hand, have risen from 15% to 35%. The fact that the gambling side of the industry hasn’t been hit by regulations has led to this exponential growth. All of this is indicative of a massive change in the industry, and it bodes well for those involved in blockchain’s gaming sectors. Crypto Ad Campaigns Distribution by Niche. Bitmedia data: 2021 % 2023 % Crypto exchanges / DEX 35 Gambling/Betting 35 NFT games 15 Web3 projects 25 Gambling/Betting 15 Crypto exchanges / DEX 20 Web3 projects 10 NFT games 10 Other 15 Other 10 This is especially the case in parts of the world where crypto didn’t have as strong of a presence until more recently. Again, Bitmedia’s data is helpful here. The top locations for Web3 advertising have moved in an increasingly eastern direction. Prior to 2023, four of the top five countries were native English-speaking, and the fifth, Singapore, uses a form of English as its unofficial language. By 2023, four of the top five nations for Web3 advertising were in southeast Asia, and the fifth was African. This signals a major change in the industry. And it’s one that shows no sign of slowing down. Top Geos for Web3 Advertising. Bitmedia data: 2021 2023 USA Philippines Canada Thailand UK Vietnam Australia Indonesia Singapore Nigeria According to a , the “most consistent interest in GameFi has been from the East Asia region,” including South Korea, Hong Kong, and China. study by CoinGecko https://twitter.com/coingecko/status/1658665199208140805?s=20&embedable=true As interest in GameFi grows around the world, there will be an ever-increasing number of opportunities for crypto investors and startups. We at Bitmedia as noted this growth and the growing potential for leveraging the space for advertising. “The use of an open source distributed ledger (or blockchain) would enable users to confirm the trustworthiness and validity of those people participating, their backgrounds and interactions with others. Fake accounts or suspicious individuals without any background could be easily identified by publishers and gaming platforms who could see which accounts are trusted and have numerous interactions with other members of any given blockchain. The benefits go beyond mere transparency and accountability, important though they are; it would also ensure greater budget effectiveness, as the new data adds an extra layer of precise data that can be used to tailor ad campaign targeting to a molecular level”. Looking Behind and Ahead Crypto adoption and regulation related to the industry are different forces that don’t always align with one another. At times, regulations lag behind adoption. In other instances, they lead. Much depends on infrastructure and the kinds of proposed regulations. However, one thing is clear: both of these factors play a significant role in the development of crypto businesses in the world. This can be easily seen by taking a brief look at the development of the crypto industry up until today. As we face uncertain waters ahead, both in terms of crypto adoption and regulations, we ought to recognize the difficulties and opportunities. Anxiety about legal regulations will continue to have an impact on where crypto projects pop up. The competition presented by those new projects will also impact the future of the industry. With all that said, now is the time for entrepreneurs to find a niche they can grow into. There’s never been an easier, cheaper time to do it. Furthermore, the rise of new bursting-with-demand geographies poses as an added layer of opportunities that once again helps the blockchain adoption and, therefore, the world.

Who are Crypto and Web3 Companies Fighting For In 2023?

According to BlockFi’s Real Talk survey conducted in March 2022, nearly 1 in 3 women in America planned to buy crypto that year. Indeed, a notable 24% of women reported owning cryptocurrency, with the majority (70%) embracing the ‘HODL’ strategy — holding onto their crypto without selling, a figure significantly higher than the market average of 55%. The leading cryptocurrencies among women are Bitcoin (71%), Dogecoin (42%), and Ethereum (18%). Yet, despite this growing interest and participation, there is still a considerable knowledge gap to be addressed. Among those who already own crypto, a striking 75% have only traded, missing out on opportunities such as earning interest & rewards or engaging in mining or staking. Moreover, 80% of women find crypto confusing, and 72% perceive it as too risky to invest in. This guide aims to demystify the complex world of cryptocurrencies for women, helping to convert confusion into confidence and perceived risk into informed decision-making. Whether you’re among the growing number of women already investing in crypto or looking to take the plunge, this comprehensive guide is for you. : Cryptocurrencies are digital or virtual currencies that use cryptography for security, making them almost impossible to counterfeit or double-spend. Introduction to Cryptocurrencies Unlike traditional currencies, they are not issued or regulated by any central authority, such as a government or financial institution. This makes them theoretically immune to government interference or manipulation. : Blockchain is the underlying technology of most cryptocurrencies. It is a type of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) where transaction data is stored across a network of computers globally, making the system decentralized. Understanding Blockchain Technology This technology ensures the integrity and security of the data — once a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it cannot be altered, which creates trust in the system. : The value of cryptocurrencies is highly volatile, and it is not uncommon to see significant price swings in short periods. This volatility is often driven by investor sentiment, market speculation, regulatory news, technological advancements, and macroeconomic trends. Value and Volatility The potential for high returns exists, but so does the risk of substantial losses. : Purchasing cryptocurrencies typically involves several steps. Firstly, one must set up a digital wallet to store the cryptocurrencies. Then, an account needs to be created on a cryptocurrency exchange platform. How to Buy Cryptocurrencies These exchanges allow users to purchase cryptocurrencies using traditional money or trade one cryptocurrency for another. : There are several types of cryptocurrencies available in the market. Bitcoin, the first and the largest cryptocurrency by market cap, was created to function as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Types of Cryptocurrencies Ethereum, the second-largest, was designed to facilitate smart contracts and distributed applications without downtime, fraud, or interference from a third party. Each cryptocurrency has its own use cases, technologies, and ecosystems. : Bitcoin, invented in 2008 by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto, is the first decentralized cryptocurrency and remains the most valuable and popular. Bitcoin (BTC) It was created as a response to the financial crisis and the perceived failure of traditional banking. Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger known as the blockchain. : Ethereum is an open-source, blockchain-based platform invented by Vitalik Buterin in 2015. Ethereum (ETH) Ethereum has its own cryptocurrency called Ether, but it’s best known for enabling ‘smart contracts’ — self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into lines of code. This allows the creation of decentralized applications (dApps) and tokens on its platform. : Launched in 2011 by Charlie Lee, a former Google engineer, Litecoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency often referred to as the silver to Bitcoin’s gold. It offers quicker confirmation times for transactions and a different hashing algorithm. Litecoin (LTC) : Ripple is both a digital payment protocol and a cryptocurrency (XRP). Developed by Ripple Labs Inc., the Ripple network is designed to enable fast, low-cost international money transfers between financial institutions, aiming to disrupt traditional cross-border transfer systems like SWIFT. Ripple (XRP) : Dogecoin, featuring a Shiba Inu dog from the “Doge” Internet meme as its logo, was introduced in December 2013 by Billy Markus and Jackson Palmer. It started as a joke but has gained a cult following and become a well-known “meme” cryptocurrency. Dogecoin (DOGE) Despite its whimsical origins, Dogecoin has been used for serious crowdfunding efforts, including funding a team of athletes to go to the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. : Meme coins are a type of cryptocurrency that have often originated as jokes or memes on the internet. Meme Coins Despite their humorous or non-serious origins, some meme coins, like Dogecoin or the Shiba Inu coin, have garnered significant attention and have even achieved substantial market capitalization. While they can present potential opportunities for speculative profit due to their viral nature and community backing, they also carry significant risk given their often volatile price movements and lack of underlying utility or value proposition compared to other cryptocurrencies. : Prior to investing, it’s crucial to research the cryptocurrencies’ fundamentals. This includes understanding the purpose of the coin/token, its use cases, the technology it’s built on, the team behind it, and its roadmap for future development. Importance of Research Thorough research can provide a better understanding of the investment’s potential risks and rewards. : Investing in cryptocurrencies comes with risks. The market’s extreme volatility can lead to significant losses. Cryptocurrencies are also susceptible to cybersecurity threats. Exchanges or digital wallets that are not stored offline can be hacked, leading to a loss of investment. Risks Involved Furthermore, the regulatory environment is still developing and can change rapidly, affecting the value or even legality of certain cryptocurrencies. : Diversification is a key strategy in mitigating investment risk. By spreading investments across a variety of cryptocurrencies, investors can potentially offset a poor performance by one cryptocurrency with a better performance by another. Diversification However, it’s also important to diversify investments across different asset classes, not just within cryptocurrencies. : Long-term investment strategies often involve buying and holding a cryptocurrency for years with the expectation that the price will significantly increase. Long-term vs Short-term Short-term trading, on the other hand, involves taking advantage of the market’s volatility by buying and selling cryptocurrencies over shorter time frames. Each approach has its own set of risks and potential rewards, and an investor should choose a strategy based on their individual risk tolerance and investment goals. : Given the relative infancy of the cryptocurrency market, the legal and regulatory environment can be unpredictable and vary greatly by country. Legal and Regulatory Environment Governments around the world are grappling with how to regulate this new asset class, and any changes can significantly impact the value and viability of certain cryptocurrencies. : While cryptocurrencies can offer high returns, they should only represent a portion of a balanced investment portfolio. Their volatility and risk mean that they are not suitable as the sole investment for most investors. Crypto as Part of a Balanced Portfolio Traditional investments, such as stocks, bonds, and real estate, still play a vital role in a diversified portfolio. As with all investments, only money that one is prepared to lose should be invested in cryptocurrencies. Canada Canadian investors do have the option to invest in Bitcoin ETFs (Exchange-Traded Funds). These financial products can be a good way for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin without having to directly buy, store, and secure the cryptocurrency themselves. Here are some pros and cons of investing in a Bitcoin ETF: Pros: Ease of Use: ETFs trade on traditional stock exchanges, meaning you can buy and sell shares in a Bitcoin ETF using any brokerage account. You don’t need a digital wallet or have to engage with a cryptocurrency exchange. Regulation: ETFs are subject to regulatory oversight, providing a layer of protection that direct Bitcoin investments do not offer. Diversification: Some ETFs invest in a diversified portfolio of cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin, which can help spread risk. Security: With a Bitcoin ETF, you don’t need to worry about securing a digital wallet or dealing with potential hacks, as the ETF manager handles the security. Cons: Fees: ETFs come with management fees, which you wouldn’t incur if you bought Bitcoin directly. Price Discrepancies: The price of a Bitcoin ETF might not precisely track the price of Bitcoin itself due to the fund’s expenses, supply, demand for the ETF’s shares, or other market factors. Lack of Control: With an ETF, you don’t own the underlying Bitcoins directly. This means you can’t use them for transactions or in DeFi (Decentralized Finance) protocols. What Is DeFi? is a rapidly growing sector within the cryptocurrency industry that leverages blockchain technology to recreate and improve traditional financial systems. Decentralized Finance, or DeFi, Here Are Some Key Points About DeFi to Understand: Decentralized Nature: DeFi applications operate on blockchain networks and are not controlled by any single entity, such as a bank or government. Instead, they are governed by code and the community of users. : DeFi applications are built using smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code. Smart Contracts The Ethereum blockchain is currently the primary platform for DeFi due to its robust smart contract capabilities, although other blockchains are also developing DeFi ecosystems. : DeFi platforms offer a range of financial services similar to those in traditional finance, such as lending and borrowing, interest-bearing accounts, insurance, asset trading, and more. Financial Services : DeFi applications are typically open to anyone with an internet connection. You don’t need to go through a lengthy approval process to use these services, which can increase financial inclusivity. Permissionless and Open-Source Many DeFi projects are also open-source, meaning their code is publicly accessible, promoting transparency and community-led growth. : While DeFi has significant potential, it also comes with substantial risks. Smart contract bugs or exploits can lead to hacks, resulting in the loss of user funds. Also, many DeFi platforms involve highly complex economic models and high volatility, which can result in significant financial loss. Risks : Due to the inherent complexity and risks, it’s crucial for individuals to thoroughly understand how each DeFi platform works before getting involved. Importance of Education This includes understanding the platform’s smart contract functions, the specific risks involved, and the steps needed to secure their investments. There Are Several Ways That Investors Can Potentially Earn Returns in the Defi Space: : Lending platforms allow users to earn interest by supplying digital assets. The interest is paid by borrowers who provide collateral to secure their loans. Lending Platforms : This involves lending or staking crypto assets in a DeFi protocol to earn rewards. Yield farmers often move their assets around to chase the highest yields, but the complexity and risk are high. Yield Farming : On decentralized exchanges, users can supply assets to liquidity pools and earn transaction fees in return. The risk is ‘impermanent loss,’ which can occur if the prices of the pooled assets change relative to each other. Liquidity Providing : Some DeFi projects have their own tokens and offer rewards for users who stake their tokens in the network. Staking helps secure the network and participate in governance decisions, and in return, stakers earn rewards. Staking : Taking advantage of price differences between different exchanges or pools. Traders can buy low on one platform and sell high on another. Arbitrage : IDOs are the DeFi version of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), where new projects sell tokens before they’re released to the public. If the project does well, these tokens can increase in value. Participating in Initial DEX Offerings (IDOs) : Some projects incentivize certain actions (like providing liquidity or borrowing) by distributing their native tokens as rewards. This is often how new DeFi tokens are initially distributed to the community. Token Farming : Some DeFi platforms offer insurance-like products to protect against smart contract failures or other risks. Users can earn money by providing coverage. Income from Insurance Remember, while there are numerous ways to earn money in DeFi, they all come with significant risks, including smart contract bugs, platform failures, regulatory changes, extreme price volatility, and more. Thorough research and due diligence are essential before engaging with DeFi platforms. DeFi is an innovative but high-risk sector of the cryptocurrency market. As with all investments, it’s crucial to do thorough research and consider seeking advice from a financial advisor before diving in. Audrey Nesbitt Also published here

Cryptocurrency 101: A Guide to Help Women Start Their Journey in the Digital Currency Space

In 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its current and former CEOs. sued Ripple Labs The SEC claimed that Ripple Labs was selling unregistered securities to raise funds. The unregistered security, in this case, was XRP, a crypto token. The SEC that Ripple Labs used XRP to pay for services such as market making and labor. also claimed Generally speaking, the However, Ripple Labs decided that it wouldn't settle the suit outside the court and would see the case to its legal conclusion in court. And that's how the Ripple and SEC case started. SEC prefers to settle cases. Background of the Case Ripple Labs is an American tech company that was established in 2012. The company's main product is the Ripple payment protocol and its exchange network. The goal of Ripple Labs is to build a more resilient international financial system. Ideally, Ripple Labs to (or at least complement) SWIFT, the current framework for cross-border payments. To do that, the company created a network where payments can be sent and settled in real time. wants replace The payments on this network were to be completed using a cryptocurrency called XRP. However, in 2013, Ripple Labs started selling XRP to the public. According to the SEC, this was an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in disguise. In 2020, the SEC decided to take action by suing the company. In its lawsuit, the SEC claimed that the sale of XRP tokens was an IPO of an unregistered security. Since XRP was never registered as a security, the SEC claimed that Ripple Labs had committed fraud. The lawsuit also claimed that Ripple Labs didn't just sell unregistered securities, the company also used those securities as a means of exchange for non-cash services. This includes offering XRP bonuses to lure top tech talent to work for Ripple Labs. Importantly, the SEC that Ripple Labs never made any move to register their XRP sales or offers. The company's sales also failed to meet any legal exemption that might have prevented the sales from violating federal law. claimed Lastly, the SEC took the present and former CEOs of Ripple Labs to the task. The lawsuit named Chris Larsen, the former CEO and co-founder of Ripple Labs, and Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple Lab's present CEO. The SEC that both Larsen and Garlinghouse had personal unregistered XRP transactions that were valued at around $600 million. claimed Once the SEC filed its lawsuit against Ripple Labs, fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread in the market. Whales and retailers alike dumped the XRP token, and its value in the market plunged. This was despite the fact that the crypto market was riding a bull market at the time, and the token had experienced an all-time high in the same period. Ripple Labs Replies to the SEC When Ripple got notice of the SEC's lawsuit, it decided not to settle out of court and fight the case in front of a judge. The response of the company was immediate and scathing. Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of the company, quickly took to Twitter to note his displeasure at the suit. https://twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/1341193538361384960?embedable=true In court, Ripple's lawyers that the SEC never gave Ripple any notice. This is a claim that the SEC didn't contest. Ripple's lawyers also claimed that the SEC was biased in applying the ideas of securities to cryptocurrencies like XRP. argued Ripple's lawyers also argued that other cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum, were not given the same treatment that is now applied to SEC. The lawyers claimed that the entire basis of the suit was wrong as a matter of law, as parts of the U.S. government, such as the Justice Department and the Treasury Department's FinCen have already designated XRP as a currency. Hence, Ripple's lawyers claimed, the SEC suit couldn't possibly be correct. Therefore, Ripple's defense rests on two important arguments. The first is that the SEC wrongfully targeted Ripple, and the second was that XRP was a currency, not a security. In Garlinghouse's , he clarified that XRP wasn't a security because it wasn't an investment contract. This means that people who hold XRP do not share in Ripple Lab's profits or expect dividends. aforementioned blog Secondly, Ripple Labs already has its own class of shareholders. Garlinghouse argued that selling XRP to retailers didn't mean the buyers could become Ripple Labs shareholders. This meant that XRP was never marketed or sold as a security. Lastly, Garlinghouse argued that the value of XRP isn't correlated to the activities of Ripple Labs. Instead, the value of XRP has been correlated with the value of other such virtual currencies. In the end, Garlinghouse, in his robust reply, made it clear that Ripple Labs would be fighting the SEC case in court and would never settle. The SEC Lawsuit Progress The SEC lawsuit started in 2020, and it's not yet done. Over the last two years, there have been several important developments in the case. Here's a conclusive timeline of those developments. December 22; The SEC filed the suit against Ripple Labs and its present and former CEO. On the same day, Brad Garlinghouse, the company's present CEO, decided to fight the case instead of settling. December 28, 2020; Coinbase delists XRP. March 3; Ripple Labs begins its legal arguments by claiming that the SEC failed to issue fair notice to it about XRP's status. March 8; The SEC requests a trial immediately. March 22, 2021; Judge Netburn tells the SEC that XRP has a currency value and utility. April 13, 2021; M. Pierce, the SEC commissioner, publishes the Token Safe Harbor Proposal 2.0. This proposal offers a three-year grace period for developers to understand their participation in decentralized networks. June 2021; The court extends SEC's deadline to disclose its internal crypto trading policies to August 31, 2021. October 2021; Expert discovery deadline for gathering opinions from experts on whether XRP is a security or not. September 2021; Judge to disclose the XRP holdings of SEC employees. refuses Ripple Labs' motion September 13, 2022; SEC moves to of its expert witnesses. seal the identities September 2022; SEC and Ripple Labs argue for summary judgment on whether Ripple Labs violated federal law in selling XRP. September 29, 2022; Judge rules to release emails written by former SEC Corporation Finance Division Director William Hinman that related to a speech where he said that ETH wasn't a security because it was sufficiently decentralized. December 2, 2022; SEC and Ripple Labs file redacted final arguments for the suit. The judge is yet to pass summary judgment on the case, but according to certain analysts, that decision will be made soon. That judgment may also include conclusions on the different sealing motions that both the SEC and Ripple Labs filed. https://twitter.com/FilanLaw/status/1598139832890380288?embedable=true The LBRY Case May Be Connected to Ripple Judgment on the XRP case may not yet have been passed, but the SEC has recently prosecuted a similar case. The SEC recently won its case against a blockchain-based payment and file-sharing network called LBRY. The LBRY case garnered a lot of attention because of its similarities with the Ripple Labs case. LBRY uses its token, the (LBC) credit, to reward users who perform tasks on the network. These tasks include referring new users, publishing content, and contributing to projects. The LBC credit can either be mined or bought. In 2021, the SEC filed a case against LBRY, arguing that the network was selling an unregistered security. This unregistered security is the LBC token. In court, the SEC sought an injunction against the sale of the tokens and argued for a release of all funds realized from the sale of the tokens. However, LBRY made roughly the same argument as Ripple. It argued that its LBC credit wasn't for investment purposes and that it had utility at the time of its launch. The argument was that something, the LBC token in this case, that had a function was a security, not a commodity. Like Ripple, LBRY also argued that it had not gotten notice from the SEC. Unfortunately for the network, the court disagreed. First of all, the court judged that LBRY didn't need fair notice from the SEC. LBRY, the court , ought to judge for itself whether it was selling unregistered securities or not. pronounced Secondly, the court judged that LBRY had led investors to believe that the value of their tokens would grow as the company continued to oversee the LBRY network. While LBRY argues that it made disclaimers arguing that LBC credits were not tokens, the court decided that . disclaimers are generally inadequate One can only speculate on the question of whether this judgment might influence Ripple's case. The important thing to understand is that the LBRY case has no procedural effect on Ripple's case with the SEC. The LBRY case was heard in the U.S. first district, while the Ripple and SEC case is being heard in the second district. No one really knows how the SEC and Ripple case will end. But what we do know is that the ruling will have a huge impact on the future of cryptocurrencies.

Ripple and the SEC Case: History of the Almost Never-Ending Litigation

লহর এবং এসইসি কেস: প্রায় শেষ না হওয়া মামলার ইতিহাস

Ripple und der SEC-Fall: Geschichte der fast endlosen Rechtsstreitigkeiten

Ripple y el caso de la SEC: Historia del litigio casi interminable

Ripple et l'affaire SEC : histoire d'un litige presque sans fin

रिपल एंड द एसईसी केस: हिस्ट्री ऑफ़ द ऑलमोस्ट नेवर-एंडिंग लिटिगेशन

Ripple と SEC 事件: ほとんど終わりのない訴訟の歴史

리플과 SEC 사건: 거의 끝나지 않는 소송의 역사

Ripple e o caso da SEC: história do litígio quase interminável

Ripple ve SEC Davası: Neredeyse Hiç Bitmeyen Davanın Tarihi

Ripple và Vụ kiện SEC: Lịch sử kiện tụng gần như không có hồi kết

Ripple 和美国证券交易委员会案例：几乎永无止境的诉讼的历史

Crypto markets saw some oomph over the weekend but have now begun to take another breather. Important to remember that this week we’ve got FOMC on Nov 2 - expected to be 75 bps and CPI next week on Nov 10 - so watch out for funky market moves. Today is also the 14th anniversary of the Bitcoin whitepaper. Imagine if you just would’ve bought Bitcoin back then.. Thinking about the Bitcoin Pizza Guy today - the dude who spent 10,000 bitcoin on two large pizzas. 💊 Daily Bullets: Matter Labs, developer of zkSync, is working on a Layer 3 chain called Opportunity - plans to release a proof of concept in the first quarter of 2023 Blockchain infrastructure company Chain announced an undisclosed-sum advertising and promotional partnership deal with NBA team the Miami Heat to become their “official Web3 and blockchain infrastructure partner” A judicial report has reportedly revealed that crypto lender Hodlnaut lost around $189.7M due to its exposure to the Terra crash 👨‍⚖️  Economic/Government/Regulatory News: United States-based crypto advocacy group Blockchain Association has come out in support of Ripple Labs amid its ongoing legal battle with the SEC, claiming the case could be very important for the future of the crypto industry Terra co-founder Do Kwon faces a $57M class-action lawsuit in Singapore. The lawsuit alleged Kwon and others made fraudulent claims on UST The Reserve Bank of India will begin a pilot wholesale digital currency with the goal of reducing transaction costs and the need for collateral when trading government securities 💸  Exchange News: FTX staff has been encouraged to make the move to Miami, which is home to FTX Arena, by mid-November Allegedly: the former CEO and CFO of Huobi has resigned. Justin Sun's TRON team has taken over important departments of Huobi. Huobi has 1,600 employees, Justin Sun believes that there are too many people, and there may be large-scale layoffs FTX teases partnership with GameStop 🏦 DeFi News: Aptos-based DeFi project Arco Protocol facing criticism after a error-struck token sale and a sudden loss of key partnerships - gives decision to its community: back it or let the whole thing shut down The attacker behind the $14.5M exploit of crypto launchpad Team Finance has returned ~ $7M worth of tokens to four projects The Injective Explorer V2 is now live. Major upgrades include interactive views of interchain assets, a markets section, smart contract code 🖼 NFT/Metaverse/Gaming News: Mark Zuckerberg cast as web3 supervillain in forthcoming game. The Rabbit Hole features characters that are “posed to defend Web3 from the corporate overlord, Metazuckbot” 💰 Fundraises: Crypto wallet Braavos raised a $10M round to simplify crypto wallets on StarkNet led by crypto-focused investment giant Pantera Capital The Stellar Development Foundation $10M Enterprise Fund investment in NetXD Inc., a platform that enables businesses to manage their asset securitization and digital asset custody needs RakkaR Digital, a Singapore-based crypto custodian that uses technology from Fireblocks, has raised $10M in a seed funding round backed by a single investor - SCB 10X 📊 Data: TL;DR: Smart money still never decided to jump into the recent rally. Today we’ve got conflicting moves with money flowing into one form of USDC however more money flowing out of another form of USDC (Aave and Compound USDC). Weekly shows the same conflicting USDC move and overall there are greater outflows than inflows for ETH related plays and WBTC. NFT volumes continue to grind downwards - top collection not even 400 ETH today. Dogecoin was the 4th most traded crypto in the past 7 days with $45B in volume - more than BUSD and USDC. Also published . here

Bitcoin Whitepaper 14th Anniversary and Upcoming FOMC 💊

The acceptance and disruption of , the most significant invention since the internet, are comparable. The potential influence blockchain could have in the future is incalculable, only comparable to something so revolutionary as the internet. blockchain technology Decentralization, public ledgers, and genuine asset ownership are the three main components of a blockchain. This has various implications, but the corporate world has been hidden from regular investors for far too long due to centralization and opacity. The Financial Industry A few significant issues in traditional finance can be resolved by blockchain. The safety of networks comes first, then the absence of a global financial system. The largest problem of centralization, control, and genuine ownership sits on top of them. Recent protests in Canada resulted in the government choosing to block, freeze, and restrict the bank accounts of everyone taking part in the nonviolent demonstration. While families at home saw their own accounts become locked for transferring money to protesting loved ones, businesses participating in the action saw their corporate finances stopped. It is also common practice in nations like China and Russia to seize control of bank accounts. "trucker rally" From the total amount of money in circulation to account access to the actual cash we place into our accounts, the government and banks have ultimate control over our money. Banks operate by taking your money and investing it as though you were lending it to them. They then return to you less than 0.1% of the interest collected, keeping somewhere between 3 and 25% for themselves. Why not hold and invest your own money and keep all the returns after learning how banks operate as opposed to obtaining less than 0.1%? is seriously deficient in many developing nations. Take as an illustration. A significant part of the reason they decided to adopt Bitcoin as legal cash nationwide was the fact that around 70% of people lack access to banks. Without credit ratings, loans and mortgages, debit cards, and general financial access, any country's economy will lag well behind that of the more developed world by years. This is difficult to comprehend from a first-world country. El Salvadoreans couldn't send money digitally before embracing the bitcoin ecosystem, and they couldn't even get a loan to establish a business or purchase a house. Financial inclusion El Salvador Due to money printing and weak monetary policy, other nations' currencies, such as those of and , have fallen in value at astronomically rapid rates. Videos of people burning cash and using it to create fashion designs have gone viral, demonstrating how little value there is in actual money. Around the world, centralized organizations have control over the cash supply, the laws governing it, and the power to close and freeze bank accounts. Venezuela Turkey Decentralization and the openness of a public ledger are undeniably preferable alternatives to the current global financial system with blockchain, notably Bitcoin. A predefined, fixed supply and a predetermined monetary policy governing how Bitcoin operates. This means that until all 21 million Bitcoin are distributed, no one in the world will be able to alter the monetary policy governing bitcoin. Nobody can create additional Bitcoin and release it into the system, which would lower its value. Nobody can access your funds using a private cold wallet without knowing your seed phrase. Blockchain technology and bitcoin are available everywhere on earth and can provide banking services to unbanked areas. The Defi (Decentralized Finance) area is highly represented on the layer one Ethereum blockchain. Aave is a typical dApp (decentralized application) running on the Ethereum network. With Aave, users may borrow and lend cryptocurrency very instantaneously and without the need for middlemen or bank approvals. Holding 10 ETH on the Aave platform will give you a loan of 2–5 ETH in less than two minutes. This is far faster and handier than a real bank and gives you the advantage of using the purchasing power of your assets without actually selling them. There are defi solutions for asset exchanges, asset sales, and decentralized exchanges. You can buy cryptocurrency using these DEXs instead of centralized intermediaries like Robinhood or Coinbase. Banking & P2P Transactions Due to the major problems with remittances in the late 2000s and early 2010s, many early adopters of Bitcoin chose to use digital currency. Remittances are payments that are frequently made between people in exchange for products or services. Many immigrants discovered that using their banks and other conventional methods to send money home to their relatives is time- and money-consuming. People immediately looked for alternatives after learning they were frequently charged 15-20%+ of the transaction price. Because of its low transaction fees and speedy processing times, early adopters of Bitcoin fell in love with the decentralized technology. Even in 2022, crypto will still be able to address issues with cost, cost-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, security, and trust in typical payment applications. Remittances and bank settlements are somewhat comparable, however, bank and financial institution money transfers, frequently on a worldwide scale and involving multiple currencies, are the focus of bank settlements. Banks have difficulty with these transactions since they tie up funds on their balance sheets and can take more than a week to complete. The length of time it takes to transfer money has a significant impact on the amount of capital invested in the market and, consequently, the overall profits of the banks. XRP is one instance of a cryptocurrency that addresses bank settlements and remittances. The Ripple Labs coin can speed up transactions worth billions of dollars while only paying a small portion of the going rate. Large financial institutions frequently face serious issues, however, transactions frequently execute at less than 0.01% of the transaction amount. Company & Individual Branding New branding opportunities are presented by Web3 and blockchain technology. NFTs and smart contracts provide a wide range of options for growing a business's customer base, boosting sales, and fostering brand loyalty. When specified conditions are met, smart contracts are programs that are specifically made to automatically carry out a series of orders. A smart contract, typically between two parties, gets rid of the requirement for a middleman and the necessary level of confidence for online communication and transactions. The primary purpose of these smart contracts is to "mine" fresh NFTs that are not yet in circulation. NFTs are the major advancement in branding, although smart contracts currently have greater applications in business and supply chain management. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are frequently accompanied by images. They rapidly grew in size due to the image factor. While it is far simpler to understand something that you can really see, many people have difficulties understanding blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. Brands can provide their devoted customers NFTs in exchange for benefits like discounts, first access to particular products, and more. This is a fantastic way for a company to honor its most devoted consumers. In order to increase brand trust among all customers, NFTs can also be utilized to prove the authenticity of an item whose legitimacy is in dispute. Currently, using NFTs would mostly be a marketing tactic for increasing traffic and client base through brand awareness, innovation, and the physical branding of the NFT's appearance. Every time a brand's NFT is traded, royalties can be earned, giving them a second stream of income. The best aspect is that these NFT branding methods have very low overhead and are cost-effective for businesses of all sizes. B2B & Supply Chains Since the COVID lockdowns, we have all been dealing with supply chain problems that are prevalent globally. Businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to manage supply chains on the necessary scale, which results in shortages, empty shelves, disgruntled customers, and a loss of profit. This occurs in part due to the time required to manually update inventories and accounting, which is a laborious and time-consuming operation. The rare imbalance in supply and demand is another factor that causes this. The supply chains become congested when demand increases for a product whose production has been halted or slowed. Smart contracts can be used to automate the process of updating inventories and to perform those instantaneous, simple transactions. One of the most astute things a business can do behind the scenes is to put its products on the blockchain. Tracking, analyzing, and managing inventory from anywhere in the globe is made easier by tying NFTs and other blockchain-based assets to tangible, real-world goods. Data Storage Although the majority of us may not have much knowledge of data storage, we do know that a small number of extremely powerful and significant multinational organizations store the vast majority of the world's data. The tech behemoths Google, Facebook, and Apple are among those who store personal data and benefit from its sale. Decentralized data, including real-time decentralized data feeds and decentralized query layers, has been made possible by the blockchain. Most notably, businesses like Chainlink, Storj, and The Graph revolutionized the data market. As an oracle, Chainlink enables blockchains and decentralized applications (dApps) to receive real-time data that has been compiled from many sources that have been determined to be reliable. In essence, Chainlink would use the responses from the most reliable websites and quickly send that information to you if you needed to know "Did the Red Sox win last night?". A decentralized storage cabinet called Storj was designed. It provides a method for completely decentralized file storage. Files are divided up into "shards" and anonymously distributed to various nodes throughout the network using the Storj protocol. When you come to pick up your file, these nodes eventually come together to put it back together. Like Google, The Graph has indexing and querying layer. It resembles a search engine in many ways, but without data collection and advertising. Developers contribute to the network by indexing blockchains, and users can quickly query and browse blockchain data. These services and protocols provide decentralized versions of the tools we already use, and they continue to improve on a daily basis. The Gaming Industry One of the biggest and fastest-growing industries today, video games are played by close to three billion people annually. The issue is that, despite the fact that they require time or money to get, in-game assets are not owned. One of the most well-known first-person shooting games, Call of Duty, lets you buy extra maps or locations to unlock, earn more powerful weapons through gameplay, and even use specific perks, or character attributes, to your advantage. The Call of Duty (COD) business model is used by all production teams in the video game industry. Blockchain is establishing an ownership-based ecosystem in the gaming industry. In P2E, or play-to-earn, games, users can acquire cryptocurrency tokens by taking part in in-game activities, progressing in the game, or finishing certain tasks. In this, the possibility of earning money while playing video games is introduced. Players that invest time or money into their games are given possibilities in this web-3 gaming ecosystem, which is centered around ownership. Imagine being able to put in a lot of effort over the course of a weekend to unlock a certain map or weapon, and then being able to sell that thing for real money on a public market. Microsoft has teamed with Enjin, a blockchain-based cryptocurrency firm. Enjin released a , a browser-based game with Microsoft in 2021 and is seeking to get NFT-based marketplaces for video game developers. The new endeavor "demonstrates a potential interoperability between numerous platforms, applications, and games," according to Microsoft. Microsoft is a significant player in the video game industry, and its acquisition of Activision Blizzard earlier this year significantly strengthened its already sizable gaming portfolio. The Xbox gaming system, Forza, Minecraft, Fallout, Halo, and numerous other titles are all produced by Microsoft. Minecraft NFT Ultimately, Microsoft and Enjin want to make this breakthrough available to everyone on the planet. Enjin was founded with the goal of connecting game developers and titles to NFT marketplaces, transforming in-game assets into actual assets that might be traded for real money. Why shouldn't you be able to sell a map or a weapon you buy in a video game to a friend? Given that you bought it, shouldn't you be able to use it whatever you please? The Art Industry NFTs have given artists from all different backgrounds a very special opportunity. NFTs assist artists in creating a brand for themselves and a fanbase for their work. Every time a piece of the artist's creation is sold again, NFTs pay the artist royalties. The blockchain makes counterfeiting virtually impossible, protecting artists from dealing with fraud. The traditional art market does not provide artists with many chances to build their brands or find alternate sources of income. NFTs give artists a genuine method to connect with their collectors and create a community around the work they are passionate about. It's difficult to ignore how many significant, established sectors are embracing innovation thanks to blockchain. The potential value of blockchain is 100 billion dollars, and eventually, a trillion-dollar asset class. Technology this disruptive, innovative, and powerful shouldn't be disregarded and doesn't occur frequently. Blockchain Usage Only the early internet days and even those that are hardly comparable can be used to compare blockchain usage and adoption. The rate of adoption over the previous few years has increased more than ever, with 42% of those between the ages of 18 and 34 and 21% of the 1,000 people in 2021 reporting some level of expertise with cryptocurrencies. Even as prices decline, adoption increases, especially among younger people. surveyed Blockchain networks, applications, and protocols are increasingly being used, and this trend doesn't appear to be slowing down. The number of active wallets on the Ethereum and Bitcoin networks both exceeded one million. Over 40 million people use Coinbase, likely the biggest US-based exchange, and three million of those people invest actively each month. Blockchain is slowly disrupting industries around the globe, and , are you paying close enough attention? shaping the future For media, content, or writing inquiries please contact Patrick Hagerty at PatrickJHags@gmail.com Also published . here

Blockchain Is Disrupting Businesses Around the Globe

Stories, News & Mentions about RIPPLE-LABS

Ripple-labs’s Stories on HackerNoon

Ripple-labs's News & Mentions