EDIT: Non ho visto BTC sopra 28,000 il 28/12, o sbaglio? Il massimo lo ha fatto ieri 27/12.
Esattissimo, era ieri. Concediamo un po' di lag alla stampa, è già bello che siano arrivati 24h dopo Già sono riusciti a scrivere bitcoin correttamente, un passo alla volta  Intanto l' agenzia delle entrate ha imparato a scrivere benissimo sia Bitcoin che criptovalute |
|
|
|
SEC has not questions to bitcoin so there is no need to worry. maybe there will be questions to other altcoins that conducted sales of tokens. as you see investors choose bitcoin because SEC doesn't consider it as a security.
So many times SEC stated that if bitcoin was not security coin. SEC will be targeting the illegal security token offering that operated in US. XRP is the biggest one that is still operating in US. That's why SEC was taking a legal action against XRP. SEC knows that if XRP already violated some rules. It's incorrect statement from OP says that bitcoin would be the next coin that will be sued by SEC. He needs to read more literature. Your opinion has no basis. You would need to write more to make us more aware. From what I know it uses them, Europe and a large part of Asia are already organizing. Ever heard of fatca? The revenue authorities (taxman) is already organizing, other than sec. |
|
|
|
It really will be along drawn out process and anything could happen in court and during the appeal. Ripple and those behind the project have billions of USD$ to defend themselves so they will not hesitate to spend it on the best legal team that money can buy.
Money that will be stolen from the coffers of the crypto holders. It is sad to see that an initiative born in 2013 and which therefore has been cheating us for almost 10 years, is being pursued by the galactic guardians of the economy of the sec only today. [/quote] Hoping that XRP will win it in court, XRP is quite a good project and is also in the top 10 list on CMC. I really regret this incident, but I will try to take the risk to buy some XRP at the current low.
[/quote] It is a match that can only have one winner. Suppose ripple was wrong, it would be the end of ripple and therefore of all those who invested in it. Suppose the SEC was wrong, what would it lose? For now xripple, and therefore all owners of xripple, have lost 50% of the invested value just before the declarations of the sec. |
|
|
|
It's clearly said that any coins like bitcoin and ethereum were successfully passing the test and both were utility coins. That means ripple didn't pass all of the requirements to be considered as a utility coin. RIpple was also making the founders of its project became the new richest man too. It's almost similar to bitconnect Bitcoin was making its already wealthy founders even richer. maybe that's the difference. The worst thing there is is to envy the wealth of others. This is a very common thing in my country but, until recently, it wasn't like that in America. Since the 1990s, all the new rich, from the founder of Facebook, to the late founder of Apple, have been bombarded by American justice. Instead mafiosi and criminals were left free to grow and proliferate. |
|
|
|
Are you trying to say that SEC will go after bitcoin in near future? That's almost impossible because XRP is centralized, that's why give SEC the power to go after XRP, bitcoin is fully decentralized and the maker is no where to be found, who is SEC going to arrest? Maybe this is even why Nakamoto vanished into thin air?
Yes, cause Biden is democratic and must tax the bitconin gains i think. |
|
|
|
The SEC (security and exchange commission) caused xripple to collapse and now who will pay back investors? The sec can act on the company on USA not on what it has produced and that 95% of customers (who are not Americans) own. They are certainly not stock exchanges. Then, if the SEC also wants to regulate casinos, what credibility will it ever have in the future? But then, since it would be a share, why didn't it close on the downside? What safeguards would the sec provide? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338Do not dramatize the situation so much. The SEC does not attack ripple and the claims made will not lead to the collapse of this coin. The SEC is about to file a lawsuit against Ripple in connection with the alleged sale of unregistered securities. This is generally not a very big violation and even if the claim is satisfied, it will only lead to the payment of a certain amount of the fine. If there is a violation, there must be responsibility. However, this does not mean that the SEC is going to attack cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. Already, the ripple price is starting to recover after a sharp price drop in connection with this news. Therefore, with ripple everything should be fine. The problem is this: is the SEC attacking or controlling? The task of the sec is to control and defend. After this action, those who had xripple, lost 50% of the value that could be redeemed at any time and in any exchange. Unfortunately there is no international law of economics but it will soon have to be. Should the SEC, if loose, in the persons responsible for the procedure, have to pay for the losses generated by the serious damage to its image? |
|
|
|
Litecoin Target price 150/ 200$ short mid term.
well if i don't take merits even after such a prediction i think i won't make any more predictions. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency, and I think if the SEC wanted, they would have started to sue bitcoin long time ago, but the SEC understands that they will not succeed with bitcoin, and therefore at the moment the SEC is busy investigating with Ripple and now one can only guess what will happen with Ripple.
It's true, SEC can't target bitcoin because they can't target something that can't be sued. It's just that ripple is a centralized organization that's why they are vulnerable to complaints like this. If ripple can't win its lawsuit, Its value would certainly affect badly. We experienced a value drop from ripple since the lawsuit publicized, How much more if they lose the lawsuit against them. in my opinion the btc has already been under the attention of the sec and the european, asian and russian security committees for a long time. But it' s true: just Sec can' t target BTC. |
|
|
|
SEC can't do anything about Bitcoin because it has no central organization that it can attack. I have always said that the bad part of XRP was the fact that it was run by a company and SEC could attack that company right now, that was the bad part of XRP and now it came to light with this situation.
SEC would love to do this to everyone, every single coin if they could, but they can't, why? Because, who are you going to investigate and sue in bitcoin world? There is none, you could try to do that to Satoshi Nakomoto if you want to but the reality is that there is no Satoshi Nakomoto, at least if there is one we do not know who he is, if they knew they would have already attacked him today but since they do not know who he is, there is nobody that they could sue or investigate. Invest into things that has no centralized organization behind it.
Read this way it is interesting. Attacks the company that issued ripple to force it to sell 51%.Or alternatively ripple pays taxes. As for Satoshi at this point I think someone has eliminated him. Among other things, all those who, in some way, had anything to do with him have died. The thing was getting too big. But if something has to get big, you can't stop it. |
|
|
|
The SEC versus Ripple is possible because Ripple belongs to a company. If the SEC files a case against Ripple, there are individual defendants who will face it because Ripple is not truly decentralized; it is owned. On the other hand, if the SEC files a case against Bitcoin, there is no one to whom the case is directed. There is no company either.
Indeed, that is the beauty of being decentralized, there is no point of operation, everyone who is supporting Bitcoin is scattered thru out the word. And no company or entity owns the Bitcoin blockchain. Probably this is the reason why Satoshi remains anonymous. He has foresee the possible scenario if he became known. Anyway, the SEC does not care about the investors who are now facing huge losses due to its actions. Its focus is on Ripple for illegally selling securities.
In addition, they are also focused on fines and penalties. The question is if the btc turn a commodity same xripple and ethereum they can' t be quoted on the exchange in US i think |
|
|
|
|
Xrp is the 4 th crypto for capitalization after BTC ETH and USDT . Can be ripple to be damaged to sec? I think of yes cause the big lose of value. It is born in 2012 why do you remember today of action against this coin? Or do you want start action vs top coins?
|
|
|
|
You cannot compare Ripple to neither BTC or not even ETH.
As of today, BTC is still being mined by people willing to put their own time and investment into maintaining a mining setup. There is no centralized party that asks you to buy bitcoin or invest in mining it.
Even ethereum has a mining system but they are now dreading dangerous waters with the PoS model. Otherwise, the emissions are fair enough, although unlimited, which can again be a point of contention.
Ripple on the other hand is a classic premine. What else do you need as proof except the fact that the founders have made over 600 Million dollars by selling billions of the tokens that they simply gave to themselves? Ripple is basically the biggest fish. The next target i believe are going to be the stablecoins, exchange coins like BNB and any of the other tokens issued by major, well-known entities in the space.
Ethereum conducted their ico in 2014 same xripple: the investors are given tokens in return for their investments. |
|
|
|
XRP is owned by Ripple meanwhile BTC is owned by no one but the community itself. It's like comparing an apple to orange, more over who SEC gonna sue? it's not like satoshi is dumping off his BTC to the market unlike XRP founder.
I have a hard time picturing SEC gonna sue BTC because that's simply doesn't make sense considering the nature of btc as true decentralized currency. If any, they gonna sue company offering service using BTC and not the coin itself.
Ok, but we can compare ripple and Ethereum i think... |
|
|
|
@jqprez. However, the SEC can order exchanges in America to delist XRP if it wins their case. It might also give them legal precedence to delist other centralized issued tokens.
What would be the next cryptocoin to be supported by the XRParmy?
Trump lost. Shouldn't they change the head of the sec soon? or someone is trying to be reconfirmed and then fires these missiles to scare others? The Usa, not the sec, can order! and then what is the significance of an American decision on an international exchange? it means that American investors will go to invest where there is no sec. Dubai Papua Switzerland etc. Crypto is an opportunity for everyone, not a threat. It is sad to see the Usa hindering when they should favor, just as they did in the 1990s with the nasdaq. Maybe it's Bitsdaq time ... |
|
|
|
The SEC (security and exchange commission) caused xripple to collapse and now who will pay back investors?
The sec can act on the company on USA not on what it has produced and that 95% of customers (who are not Americans) own. They are certainly not stock exchanges. Then, if the SEC also wants to regulate casinos, what credibility will it ever have in the future? But then, since it would be a share, why didn't it close on the downside? What safeguards would the sec provide?
Owners and cronies and yes, including the investors because they are the ones that will take the collateral damage of the price plummet that effects this lawsuit. They are a body of the government and that's credible enough for them to do things such as this in the future. And if SEC does attacks bitcoin, who are they going to sue? satoshi nakamoto? they can't do anything with that and if they're thinking of doing it, they're going to be a big clown because its decentralization can't be handled by them. No central power and authority, unlike XRP, it has owners, ceo, etc. body of ex government. Trump lost. Shouldn't they change the head of the sec soon? or someone is trying to be reconfirmed and then fires these missiles to scare others? |
|
|
|
ok dude: this "coin" is a coin, or why we talk about coin? why must the sec decide what is a stock and what is a currency? Politics should decide! . given that, with the Fatca there is now an economic dictatorship, then we also consider the dollar as a security since almost all dollar transactions are virtual? |
|
|
|
D'accordo, però questo non risponde alla mia domanda: che valenza ha a livello mondiale?
Si, ha valenza mondiale. Per certe cose, soprattutto a tema bancario o finanziario, agli USA non interessa nulla dove tu hai la sede legale. Se vuoi fare business con un soggetto americano, devi rispettare le loro regole e loro leggi. Se UNICREDIT vuole lavorare com JPM New York, per non parlare di vendere un prodotto finanziario ad un cittadino USA, in USA, deve sottostare a tutte le regole US, e se non lo facesse si beccherebbe pure delle multe. Alcuni dicono che venga fatto per tutelare il mercato ed i privati cittadini che a questo mercato si abbeverano (i risparmiatori US). Altri dicono che é un fossato per difendere le banche USA dall’ aggressione delle banche europee che vogliono partecipare al banchetto delle banche US sui clienti US. A voi la scelta. Anche al di fuori, soprattutto al di fuori... https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/it/web/guest/schede/comunicazioni/consultazione-documenti-fatca/scheda-informativa-consultazione-documenti-fatca Dal 2014 in poi anche l' agenzia delle entrate, creata dai Romani più di 2020 anni fa ha deciso di sottomettersi agli USA. Scambio? Ma quale scambio? Io ti dico i nomi dei cittadini americani che hanno conti in Italia? E perché? Li accerto io se c' è bisogno, non arriva lo zio dall' America! Invece qua mi sembra che vogliano fare tutto gli USA. |
|
|
|
The SEC will face huge issues trying to collapse bitcoin and it'd be almost impossible without the combined efforts of Europe and China/india at least.
The Ripple foundation looked to not be run very well and this is probably a good lesson to people to try to do some sort of research but at the moment the coin has a high market cap still and may take a while to be impacted so people already had a chance to leave.
It is a real paradox that in the US you buy a shotgun at the supermarket but you cannot do scalping on coinbase. The US has always been the first on innovations, especially technological ones. He created the nasdaq, he should have created the bitsdaq not try to destroy the bitcoin! But what is the SEC asking? now xrp is worth 50% less. Would he have asked so much? And the investors? shouldn't it protect them? |
|
|
|
D'accordo, però questo non risponde alla mia domanda: che valenza ha a livello mondiale?
Si, ha valenza mondiale. Per certe cose, soprattutto a tema bancario o finanziario, agli USA non interessa nulla dove tu hai la sede legale. Se vuoi fare business con un soggetto americano, devi rispettare le loro regole e loro leggi. Se UNICREDIT vuole lavorare com JPM New York, per non parlare di vendere un prodotto finanziario ad un cittadino USA, in USA, deve sottostare a tutte le regole US, e se non lo facesse si beccherebbe pure delle multe. Alcuni dicono che venga fatto per tutelare il mercato ed i privati cittadini che a questo mercato si abbeverano (i risparmiatori US). Altri dicono che é un fossato per difendere le banche USA dall’ aggressione delle banche europee che vogliono partecipare al banchetto delle banche US sui clienti US. A voi la scelta. Non ha nessuna valenza ciò che dice la sec a livello mondiale e ciò che tu affermi ha generato la distruzione delle nostre banche e della nostra economia. Se Unicredit vuole vendere un prodotto ad un cittadino USA lo vende, l' americano viene in italia e lo compra poi sono problemi del cittadino Americano. proprio come fanno Facebook, Amazon e tutta la banda. |
|
|
|
The SEC (security and exchange commission) caused xripple to collapse and now who will pay back investors? The sec can act on the company on USA not on what it has produced and that 95% of customers (who are not Americans) own. They are certainly not stock exchanges. Then, if the SEC also wants to regulate casinos, what credibility will it ever have in the future? But then, since it would be a share, why didn't it close on the downside? What safeguards would the sec provide? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
