Part 2 Of An 8 Part Exposé
Part 2: Vital Information That Ripple Is Keeping from the SEC and Investors.
Brad Garlinghouse and David Schwartz have artfully cloaked critical information about its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply and so much more.
How Ripple surreptitiously changed the fundamental nature of XRP after investors had already committed funds. Contrary to popular belief market forces DO NOT play a significant role in the price of XRP. Ripple, almost exclusively, shapes the price of XRP.
Part 2: Vital Information That Ripple Is Keeping from the SEC and Investors.
Brad Garlinghouse and David Schwartz have artfully dodged disclosing critical information about its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply and so much more.
Coming Soon
Part 3: Market Manipulation & Judge Torres’ Dereliction.
Ripple and it’s influence-rs repeatedly make the deceitful claim that there is now clarity that XRP is not a security. The deceit is by omission and deflection. Brad Garlinghouse, David Schwartz and their lackey influence-rs resolutely fail to mention that the Judge had CLEARLY ruled that XRP WAS A SECURITY when sold to institutional investors.
Part 4: Ripple’s Double Talk - The Truth Behind Ripple’s AMM Integration
While AMM is a common mechanism used by exchanges, Ripple’s integration of AMM with its large reserves of XRP and its ODL service creates a unique scenario for market manipulation. Unlike typical exchanges that rely on user-provided liquidity, Ripple can directly inject liquidity from its own reserves. The ability to control liquidity is a form of market manipulation.
Part 5: Judicial Bias? There is Something Seriously Amiss in the NY Judicial System.
Judge Torres concurred with the SEC that Ripple had violated securities law when it sold XRP to institutional investors, privately. So, why did Gary Gensler and the SEC abandon criminal indictments, WITH PREJUDICE? Why did Judge Torres readily sanction the capitulation? Was there a sidebar to induce the SEC and Judge Torres to gratuitously surrender to Ripple?
Part 6: The Mystery of Institutional Silence.
Why haven’t institutional investors filed claims against Ripple for selling them unregistered securities? Because Ripple and institutional investors are “the whales” secretly transferring large amounts of XRP as part of settlement agreements “off the exchanges”; in full view of, and possibly, with a silent nod from Gary Gensler and Judge Analisa Torres.
Part 7: Ripple's IPO and ETF Mirage: The Truth Behind the Hype.
Ripple's strategy hinges on keeping retail investors invested in the potential of XRP. The deceitful idea of a forthcoming IPO or an ETF approval serves as a powerful motivator for these investors, many of whom are already deeply invested and hopeful for significant returns; which Ripple knows will elude them and is actively making sure it does not happen.
Part 8: The Imminent Collapse of XRP and Implosion of Ripple Inc.
Retail investors have been the backbone of XRP's price stability, largely due to the speculative hype around potential wide scale adoption and IPO and ETF approvals. Once this illusion is shattered, the crash of XRP and the catastrophic effect it will have on the crypto market and the crypto industry as a whole, will pale in comparison to the FTX debacle. Sam Bankman-Fried can perhaps look forward to at least 3 members of the fraternity to share his lodgings with.
Part 2
Ripple’s Cloak & Dagger Strategy.
What Ripple is Hiding from the SEC & Investors
Ripple has buried critical information about its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply, the impact of its escrow accounts, financial gains from XRP sales, and has consistently skirted the issue of its influence on market dynamics and price control. XRP Investors Got Played.
How XRP Investors Got Played by Ripple's Non-Disclosure
Ripple has long touted itself as a game-changer in global trade and cross-border payments. However, beneath the surface of their grand proclamations lies a cloak and dagger strategy – a web of undisclosed details and questionable practices that Ripple has managed to keep hidden from the public and regulatory authorities. The lack of transparency raises serious questions about Ripple’s operations and motivations, and it is high time for both the SEC and investors to demand answers.
1. Specific Liquidity Sources for On-Demand Liquidity (ODL)
One of the core functionalities of Ripple’s business model is its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) service. Ripple has never clarified whether the liquidity for ODL transactions is sourced from Ripple’s own reserves, escrow accounts or the open market. This ambiguity is critical because it directly impacts the market dynamics and pricing of XRP. Investors are left in the dark about the true supply-demand mechanics influencing their investments.
There is speculation and some evidence suggesting that Ripple might be pre-allocating XRP to certain partner exchanges. This would involve Ripple providing a reserve of XRP that the exchange can draw from to meet liquidity needs. Ripple has steadfastly refused to disclose the specific terms and conditions of agreements between Ripple and exchanges and are hiding behind the veil of confidentiality.
2. Mechanisms of Escrow Release
Ripple announced the establishment of escrow accounts in December 2017 to ostensibly provide additional predictability to XRP supply. However, the specific mechanisms governing the release and management of the escrowed XRP remain opaque. Investors deserve to know whether any portion of the escrowed XRP is used for market intervention, potentially manipulating the price of XRP.
3. Impact on XRP Pricing. Control Over XRP Supply.
Ripple remains coy about the exact nature and the terms of agreements with exchanges regarding liquidity provision. There is no accurate information about how much XRP is held in Ripple's reserves outside of escrow and how it is utilized. The SEC and investors are entitled to know if Ripple has any preferential pricing arrangements with exchanges. Ripple’s management of XRP liquidity undoubtedly affects its market price and disclodure is vital for investor protection. Ripple may be actively managing liquidity in ways that manipulate prices. Is so, investors have a right to know.
4. Financial Gains and Sales.
Ripple has not provided a breakdown of Ripple’s profits from selling XRP directly from its reserves. Ripple must be made to disclose specific sales data, including volumes and prices, to assess how these transactions affect the market.
5. Internal Strategies and Policies
Details about Ripple’s internal strategies for handling unsold XRP from monthly releases and their policies regarding the buyback of XRP from the open market after large transactions are conspicuously absent. These internal policies have a significant impact on the market and investor confidence, and their secrecy only fuels suspicion.
6. Investor Communication and Marketing
Ripple’s communication with investors regarding its strategic decisions and their impact on XRP has been less than transparent. Investors need clarity on how changes to the utility and function of XRP post-launch affect their investments. Ripple’s reticence in this area suggests a deliberate attempt to obscure the real implications of their decisions.
7. Partnership Agreements
The specific terms of partnerships with banks and financial institutions concerning the use of XRP and RippleNet remain undisclosed. Additionally, there is little transparency about the revenue generated from XRP sales and how it is reinvested in the company or market. These agreements are pivotal in understanding Ripple’s broader strategy and its impact on XRP’s market value.
The SEC's Role and the Need for Transparency
Under existing US law, the SEC has the authority to demand comprehensive reports on Ripple’s liquidity management, transaction records, and internal communications. The SEC can also request documentation on the management and release of XRP from escrow accounts and the terms of agreements with exchanges and financial institutions.
The Ripple Effect on Investors
The glaring lack of transparency from Ripple has significant repercussions for investors.
Ripple has refused to disclose critical information about its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply, the impact of its escrow accounts, financial gains from XRP sales, and has consistently skirted the issue of its influence on market dynamics and price control. This lack of transparency leaves investors without the necessary information to make fully informed decisions. Transparency is essential to protect investor interests and ensure fair market practices. However, the SEC’s actions so far have been tepid, focusing primarily on whether XRP should be classified as a security, rather than probing deeper into Ripple’s opaque practices.
In Part 3, we will delve into Gary Gensler’s questionable reluctance to ask for and publicly disclose information that is actually vital for investor protection.
Comments