Part 3 Of An 8 Part Exposé
Part 1: Ripple’s Business Model Revision – The Dark Side Of ODL.
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.
Brad Garlinghouse and David Schwartz have artfully dodged disclosing critical information about its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply and so much more.
Part 3: Market Manipulation & Judge Torres’ Dereliction.
Ripple and it’s influencers 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 lacky influencers resolutely fail to mention that the Judge had CLEARLY ruled that XRP WAS A SECURITY when sold to institutional investors.
Coming Soon
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 3.
Market Manipulation & Judge Torres’ Dereliction.
The Deceitful Claim About The Judge’s Decision .
The SEC & the Judge have missed the mark in its landmark case. The material takeaway from the decision is that Ripple was found liable for illegal sales of $729 million of XRP - to institutional investors. XRP is, therefore, a SECURITY. Has Judge Torres enabled market manipulation?
That, is the part of the ruling that provides the SEC with the necessary authority to secure critical information from Ripple. Why hasn’t it? Is market manipulation being overlooked? At the very least, Judge Torres ought to have followed through with this ruling by issuing consequential orders in relation to disclosure requirements / transparency. It seems that Judge Torres’ dereliction is enabling market manipulation.
The entire ecosystem surrounding XRP and cross border payments is controlled by Ripple behind a suspicious cloak of secrecy. This kind of covert practice is the harbinger of another FTX/Sam Bankman-Fried catastrophe in the making. In the high-stakes world of cryptocurrency, transparency should be the default setting of all the dramatis personae – the issuer, the regulatory authorities, the exchanges and the judicial system. But what happens when a major player like Ripple is clearly keeping critical information from the public and its investors?
Ripple is in the murky waters of unethical practices. So, why is the SEC dragging its feet in enforcing disclosure requirements? In its lawsuit against Ripple Labs, filed on December 22, 2020, the main reliefs that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought included:
Injunctions: The SEC requested the court to issue permanent injunctions to prevent Ripple Labs, its CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and Chairman Chris Larsen from continuing to engage in the alleged unlawful conduct of offering and selling XRP.
Disgorgement: The SEC sought disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains obtained by Ripple Labs and its executives from their sales of XRP. Disgorgement involves the return of the amount gained from the alleged illegal activity, with interest.
Civil Penalties: The SEC asked for the imposition of civil monetary penalties on Ripple Labs and its executives to deter future violations of the securities laws.
Other Equitable Relief: The SEC sought any other relief that the court deemed appropriate, which could include measures to prevent future securities laws violations.
While the SEC's main allegations focus on Ripple's sale of XRP as an unregistered security, the lawsuit seems to lack demands for disclosures about several critical areas. Notably, the SEC has not sought court orders compelling Ripple to disclose detailed information on its liquidity sourcing practices, control over XRP supply, the impact of its escrow accounts, financial gains from XRP sales, and its influence on market dynamics and price control. This omission might be an unforgivable and, mistrustful flaw in the SEC's approach. The material takeaway from the decision is that Ripple was found liable for illegal sales of $729 million of XRP. That, is the part of the ruling that provides the SEC with the necessary authority to secure critical information from Ripple. Why hasn’t it? Is market manipulation being overlooked? Deliberately or otherwise.
The SEC has Missed the Mark in its Landmark Case!
Given these glaring gaps in transparency, and the favorable ruling vis-a-viz institutional investors, one would have expected the SEC to be all over Ripple, demanding disclosures and looking to scrutinize Ripple’s opaque practices and its impact on investors.. But the reality seems different. Ensuring full transparency would have protected all market participants and align with the SEC's mission to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Demanding detailed disclosures could have provided stronger evidence of Ripple's market practices, bolstering the SEC's claims and potentially leading to more significant penalties or corrective actions.
Could it be that Judge Analisa Torres has overlooked market manipulation? Or perhaps Gary Gensler and the SEC are cowering in fear of political backlash in a highly sensitive and evolving industry like cryptocurrency? By not delving into deeper issues like market manipulation or financial practices, the SEC might be trying to avoid repercussions from those in political circles who are in the pockets of the very powerful crypto lobby in Washington.
Advantage – Ripple.
Meanwhile, Ripple has the advantage. The absence of these demands allows Ripple to maintain clandestine operational advantages and avoid disclosing potentially damaging information about its market practices. It has also allowed Ripple to launch a counter offensive in the court of public opinion. Judge Analisa Torres’ decision was clearly that XRP, was a security when sold to institutional investors and not a security when sold to retail investors using digital asset exchanges or when used for service providers.
Since Judge Torres’ decision, Ripple’s mantra has been that there is now clarity that XRP is NOT a security. It seems that Lieutenants Christian Larsen, Brad Garlinghouse and David Schwartz have even engaged a platoon of social media influence rs to push this narrative. Ripple’s influence-rs repeatedly make this deceitful claim about the Judge’s decision by omission. 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.
It’s time for Ripple to come clean and for the SEC to refocus its efforts. Investors deserve transparency, fairness, and the truth about what’s really happening behind the scenes at Ripple.
Comments