John Deaton, the founder of CryptolawUS and a well-known attorney for XRP investors, recently posted a number of tweets. Renowned cryptocurrency enthusiast Nietzbux sparked discussions regarding the shortcomings of the SEC’s anti-Ripple arguments.
They contend that Ripple and the XRP community “out-lawyered” the SEC, in addition to the SEC’s inability to provide a compelling case for XRP’s security.
According to Nietzbux, Ripple’s brief demonstrates that the majority of the Howey Test requirements—which establish if an asset qualifies as a security—were not satisfied. This is important because in order to classify an asset as a security, it must meet all of the conditions of the Howey Test.
John Deaton’s Analysis: Debunking SEC’s XRP Argument,John Deaton’s Analysis: Debunking SEC’s XRP Argument
Pro-XRP attorney and CryptolawUS founder John Deaton expertly dissected the SEC’s case in an amicus brief, exposing its reliance on antiquated and speculative evidence.
Deaton identified a number of holes in the SEC’s chain of evidence. For instance, the SEC failed to present proof that any of the six identified XRP holders in the request to intervene were active on Twitter in 2014, while basing several instances on a post by Chris Larsen, co-founder of Ripple, from that year.
Furthermore, Deaton emphasised that the SEC did not provide proof that the 100 prospective investors who received the 2014 brochure relied on it to buy XRP, despite using it as evidence.
The fact that Ripple’s website provided information on how to purchase XRP was “the SEC’s strongest piece of evidence,” according to Deaton. His amicus brief, however, refuted this assertion by pointing out that CNBC and other non-Ripple organisations also supplied the same information.
Declaring that the SEC’s case was “dead in the water from the start,” Deaton offered a convincing conclusion that called into question the true motivations behind it. He makes a suggestion that there may have been other, unstated reasons why the action was brought rather than to enforce securities regulations. This calls into doubt the SEC’s intentions and trustworthiness in this historic case.
Nietzbux swiftly agreed with Deaton’s points, stating that Ripple had “out-lawyerred” the SEC and that the agency was “objectively wrong on the facts.”
Nietzbux expressed it quite succinctly: the fundamental problem is lawyering. Whether the SEC can persuade the courts that XRP is a security is more important than whether it is a security per se. Deaton’s well-written amicus brief and Ripple’s strong legal defence give the impression that the SEC is in trouble.
John Deaton’s Analysis: Debunking SEC’s XRP Argument,John Deaton’s Analysis: Debunking SEC’s XRP Argument,John Deaton’s Analysis: Debunking SEC’s XRP Argument