Follow me on Twitter: @moonlamboio
SIGN UP FOR A FREE 7 DAY TRIALGET YOUR .CRYPTO DOMAIN AT UNSTOPPABLE DOMAINS
TRADE CRYPTO ON BINANCE HERE "LOW FEES"
DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial adviser. None of what I have communicated verbally or in writing here should be considered financial advice; it is not. Do your own research before investing in any digital asset, and understand that investing in any cryptocurrency is inherently risky. If you do, you need to be prepared to lose your entire investment.
Hello this is Matt on the moon Lambo Channel although it's certainly true That the SEC has had quite the losing Streak in the world of crypto in 2023 The SEC did get a win here at the end of 2023 here's a headline from blockworks Judge sides with sec in terraform case On Securities sales question I'm going To let you know uh the latest and what's Going on with this I have perspective From Ripple's Chief legal officer Stuart Alera uh I've got commentary from Attorney Jeremy Hogan as well as Attorney James Murphy who is known as Metal law man on social media platform X And it's kind of interesting because Although some of what is in here is Debatable uh attorney Murphy actually Thinks that a portion uh an important Portion of of uh the decision that was Made in this particular case that judge Torres if if she were in charge of this Ruling actually would have come to the Same conclusion and it's also Interesting because this particular Judge who gave the SEC their wi here at The end of 2023 uh he actually argued against judge Torres in part in the secv Ripple case And I talked about it at the time and I Was kind of dumbfounded by some of the Stuff that this guy had to say here um But before going further I do want to be Clear I do not have a financial
Background of any kind I am not offering Financial advice and you definitely Should not buy or sell anything because Of anything I say or right I'm just an Enthusiast who enjoy is making YouTube Videos about crypto related topics but Just as a hobby and just for fun all Right so just to quickly set the table Here for a little refresher uh here's a Headline from coindesk July 31st so this Is just weeks after xrp was declared to Not be a security by judge Torres and The headline is Judge rejects Ripple Ruling precedent in denying terraform Lab's motion to dismiss SEC lawsuit and There's two bullet points one a federal Judge denied terraform lab's motion to Dismiss an SEC lawsuit and number two And this is the important one the judge Also said he rejected the use of a Ruling from another judge who ruled that Ripple did not violate Securities Law in Selling xrp to retail investors through An exchange intermediary and of course Their reference in judge Torres in the Secv Ripple case and it it was Interesting in particular because once This came out and we talked about it Extensively in the xrp community um I I Remember noting on my channel Specifically that attorney James Murphy Many many months fire I think it may Have been seven months prior he was Warning about this judge actually he
Actually called this judge his name is Judge raikov r a k FF Jed Roff he named Uh this guy a renegade actually and There's a part I don't want to read this Whole article but there's another Article for from August 3rd from Z Krypto titled no threat to xrp Ripple Chief legal officer raigh in on weighs In on terror ruling and here you can see James Murphy AKA metal law man uh was Also ready to comment on Judge roff's Decision he pointed out that he had Called raikov a renegade judge in a Video seven months ago and he just noted That this is a judge that just for Whatever reason he's kind of known for Pushing back against uh other judges on Their particular rulings it's it's just It's a pattern for the guy that's weird Because there shouldn't be such a Pattern uh in you know if you're a judge That's that's kind of alarming um and so What actually went down well here's the Brand new article from blockworks Judge Sides with SEC and terraform case on Security sales questions judge Jed Raikov the judge overseeing the US Securities and Exchange commission's Case against terraform labs and former CEO Doan has granted a summary judgment In favor of the regulatory agency the Judgment asserts that both Quan and Terraform offered and sold unregistered Securities the claim is focused on Luna
And Mir tokens Mir the SEC argued that Quan and Terraform offered and effected Transactions in unregistered Security Based swaps and claims that defendants Engaged in fraudulent schemes to lead Investors astray raikov wrote that he Grants summary judgment for the SEC on Count four of the amend amended Complaint involving defendants Unregistered offers in sales of Luna and Mir in violation of sections 5A and 5 C Of the Securities act there and this is Quote continuing there is no genuine Dispute that us that' be the stable coin Luna wrapped Luna and Mir are securities Because they are investment contracts End quote he further ruled that Ho's Definition of an investment contract is A binding statement of the law recol Found that us rapped Luna and the Aforementioned Luna and Mir are Investment contracts under the hoi test The trial now will now focus on the Fraud claims that the SEC brought Against terraform and Quan the SEC filed Its charges in February defendant and This is a quote here check this is from Roff defendants make such of the make Much of the fact Undisputed by the SEC That us on its own was not a security Because purchasers understood that its Value would remain stable at $1 rather Than generate a profit but beginning in
March 2021 holders of us could deposit Their tokens in the anchor protocol Which defendants efforts developed in Which Quan himself publicly announced Would generate by far the highest stable Coin yield in the market with a target Of 20% fixed APR and so this is that That's the end of the qu this idea has Always been completely ridiculous to me A stable coin itself which is always Worth a dollar how that couldn't Possibly in and of itself be a security Right I mean remember part of the ho Test an investment money but Specifically with the expectation of Profit and so you know you can debate This either way but I think that Attorney Jeremy Hogan had a really good Point on this here I'll just pull this Up now Jeremy Hogan wrote How can a Stable coin be a security how can you Buy something pegged to a dollar and Expect profit from it for judge raikov In the secv terraform Labs case a stable Coin is a security when you can stake it For a return on investment regardless of Whether you do or not and so think about That if you have the stable coin and You're not getting any return on it Because you didn't do the thing he Didn't put in the anchor protocol it's Still a security judge raikov says what In the ever loving hell is that does That make any logical sense it make it
Make sense I don't I don't see it so I'm Glad that attorney Hogan's pointing that Out uh he also wrote The Following and Shared this picture of Judge raikov Attorney Hogan wrote this is Judge Raikov and this is probably an older Picture since he is currently 83 years Old same age as my dad although if we Elect older people to the presidency we Have to trust them with understanding New technology as well right am I be an Aist or just a Realist yeah well I don't think that This guy gets the technology at all the Point's certainly not lost on me I don't Think he he sufficiently understands This here's Ripple's Chief legal officer Steuart aldad he wrote I have no firm View on the merits of the terraform case But here are a couple of thoughts on Yesterday's ruling number one facts Matter two judge raikov does not Criticize let alone even site judge Torres's Ripple rule yeah so okay I was Pause not that is true but again as I Cited at the outside of the video uh he Did talk about judge torres's ruling Over the summer but not in this final Ruling so fair enough but uh yeah this Guy's a piece of work number three the Sec's forever crypto ground war fighting Token by token in lengthy litigation is A Fool's errand driven by a quest for Political power over sound policy spot
On Stuart aldera and here we have Perspective from Attorney James Murphy AKA meta law man and here he wrote this Is just from this morning secv terraform Labs judge roff's decision actually Aligns with judge torres's Ripple Decision to a significant degree judge Raikov ruled that Luna and Mir were sold As investment contract contracts to Institutional investors by Tara the Issuer through written agreements Tara Represented that investing in terara Means buying Luna which is the equity in Our Company quote owning Luna is equivalent To owning a stake in the transaction Fees of a network like Visa end quote as Such terara was openly declaring that it Was selling investment contracts terara Sold mirror tokens as yield generating Investments through written agreements Tera represent that quote profits Derived from the use of the mirror Protocol are fed back to investors based On the size of their investment and Quote and quote mirr holders can earn 0.25% from Trading fees end quote in my Opinion judge Torres would have ruled The same way on these facts with respect To the Luna and Mir token sales that Were offered by terara directly to Institutional buyers by way of written Contracts judge raikov also ruled that The US stable coin was sold as an
Investment contract he ruled that Because us could be staked on the anchor Protocol it was a yield generating Investment and hence a security this Ruling is debatable and may be Vulnerable on appeal in my opinion yeah No kidding I would agree with that may Be vulnerable I mean look I'm not Pretended to be an attorney here but This doesn't make logical sense right I Think that's why attorney Hogan pointed Out what he pointed out but anyway uh Attorney Murphy continues I don't see a Material impact from judge roff's ruling On the secv coinbase case unlike Tera Coinbase is a not the issuer of any of The 13 tokens in that case and B not Alleged to have entered into any Contracts with purchasers of the tokens Caveat the SEC is likely to argue that Judge riko's ruling on us supports the Idea that a any token at issue in Coinbase that can be Stak to earn yield Should be considered an investment Contract and B coinbase's own staking Service is an investment contract as Noted I do think the ruling on the US Stable coin is debatable dollars can be Used to earn yield it happens all day Every day that doesn't make dollars Investment contracts right and so again Not only does it not make investment Contracts uh not everybody's even doing It so come on you and then he names the
Uh the next part of the thread the uh 13 Tokens that are issued they're on screen If you want to read them I'm not going To read them but uh uh I own a few of Those I own a few of those not really Thrilled that they're getting attacked By the SEC but then then he says uh the S the hearing on coinbase's motion to Dismiss is set for January 17th remember Not legal advice just one man's opinion Happy New Year to all so we'll see what Happens um it actually is plausible that This whole thing gets tossed out um I Don't know if it's going to but I've Read perspective and shared it on this Channel before that there are attorneys Reputable attorneys that think that this Actually might happen and if I'm not Mistaken not to put words in attorney Deon's mouth but um my recollection Anyway if I'm not mistaken is that he Thought that it was at least plausible That it could happen so I don't know What he thinks the odds are of it but my Recollection is he he said something to That effect so we'll find out soon Enough you know just weeks away I'm not A financial adviser you should not buy Your sell anything because of anything I Say or right that would be a very very Very bad idea until next time to the Moon Lambo
