#Peter Chervinsky

[ailtrahq]

In a landmark victory for Grayscale Investments against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the crypto giant secured the green light for its Bitcoin Trust product. Yet, Peter Schiff, a prominent financial figure known for his Bitcoin-friendly views, has sounded the alarm about potential ramifications on Bitcoin’s market dynamics. $GBTC becoming a spot ETF is actually bearish for #Bitcoin. Traders can buy GBTC now and sell or short #BTC. Once GBTC becomes an ETF, the discount to NAV goes away. Shareholders could then redeem, forcing GBTC to sell BTC into the market, vastly increasing the tradable supply. — Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) August 29, 2023   When the US SEC initially flagged Grayscale’s application for the GBTC over-the-counter, the primary concern was the product’s potential vulnerability to “fraudulent and manipulative acts.” Grayscale, a titan in the crypto realm, was not deterred. Challenging the SEC’s rejection in court, the company now celebrates its success. As highlighted by Coingape, the DC Circuit Court ruled that the SEC’s dismissal of Grayscale’s petition to transition its Bitcoin Trust into an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) was baseless. The decision was rooted in believing the trust wasn’t adequately equipped to deter deceptive practices. Peter Schiff’s Concern While renowned for his Bitcoin-friendly stance, Peter Schiff took to social platform X to express his reservations. Schiff emphasized that the transition of GBTC to a spot Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) could have unforeseen consequences on the Bitcoin market dynamics. Grayscale’s potential new product configuration might introduce volatility or disruptions not previously considered. On the other hand, Jake Chervinsky, Chief Policy Officer of the Blockchain Association, pointed out that while this court ruling is a significant win, potentially leaving the SEC red-faced, the path to a spot Bitcoin ETF product isn’t completely clear yet. 1/ Grayscale's victory over the SEC is *massive.* It's very rare for a federal circuit court to find that an agency has violated the APA by acting arbitrarily and capriciously. The DC Circuit just delivered a huge embarrassment for the SEC. But the ETF isn't approved yet 🧵 — Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) August 29, 2023   Grayscale, buoyed by its victory, might now face the challenge of proving that its proposed ETF can stand firm against fraudulent activities, meeting regulatory expectations and the broader financial market’s stability needs. As Grayscale pushes forward in its ambitions, the broader crypto community will be watching closely, weighing the benefits of increased access and liquidity against potential market dynamics shifts that Schiff and others caution about. Source

[moviestorian]

Stills from Krepostnaya (screened at Cannes as Love in Chains), a recent Ukrainian period drama set in the 19th century:

Katerina Verbitskaya was raised as a noble lady with her godmother Anna Chervinskaya but for the whole world she was only the property of Peter Chervinsky. She falls in love with the nobleman Alexey Kosach who knows nothing about her origin. On the way to freedom and love, the serf maid will have to overcome a lot of trials. (x)

[the-blockchain-news]

OP-ED: Concerns Regarding FinCEN’s Proposed Rules

by Peter Smith, Last week I sent a letter on behalf of Blockchain.com to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (embedded below), outlining my concerns regarding FinCEN’s anticipated rules related to self-custodied wallets. Since then, FinCEN released a set of proposed rules that has been widely commented on in the crypto space. The good news is that the proposal published by FinCEN on Friday is less onerous than we had anticipated. For a great synopsis of the proposed rules, I recommend reading Compound General Counsel Jake Chervinsky’s thread on twitter. Here are some of my thoughts about the proposal to implement additional restrictions on self-hosted wallets, as captured in my letter. First, the rules may be unintentionally detrimental to the underlying goal of addressing money laundering and terrorist financing activities. The challenges of addressing money laundering in the global financial system are admittedly immense. Second, the rules may simply bifurcate the industry into providers who comply with the rules and off-shore wallet providers who do not, relegating illicit activity outside of the view of US law enforcement agencies. It’s possible that unregulated offshore hosted-service providers may gain a competitive advantage over AML/KYC-regulated providers, so US law enforcement agencies may end up losing access to information that is currently readily available to them. Blockchain.com’s financial crime department interacts with law enforcement authorities on a daily by Richard Kastelein #blockchain #FINCEN #oped #Opinion #petersmith Read the full article

[michaelbennettcrypto]

Is the Whole Bitcoin SV Incident Hurting the Image of the Crypto Industry?

It isn’t a secret that the past few weeks in the crypto ecosystem have been tumultuous ones. As Bitcoin (BTC) rallied past $5,000, sparking claims that the bottom is in, Australian cryptographer Craig Wright and his crew, all fans of Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV), found themselves in a few tussles on Crypto Twitter. It wasn’t exactly pretty.

Related Reading: Why This Maximalist Moved to SV: “BTC Was Taken Over by Socialists”

The online beef went so far that Wright looked to bring the discourse to the real world, purportedly sending letters of intent to sue/bring legal action against his countless critics. Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin and Hodlonaut, the creator of the Lightning Network Torch project and a catalyst for newfound adoption, were two entities reportedly served.

Although it wasn’t confirmed whether or not the said letters reached the desks of their targets, the crypto community quickly expressed their distaste for such an act. After Hodlonaut’s Twitter page was shuttered, users across the cryptosphere began to rally to the user’s side, shunning Craig Wright, Canadian entrepreneur Calvin Ayre, and their legal team for enlisting such a scare strategy.

After Peter McCormack, Matt Odell, and other prominent Bitcoiners bashed the BSV camp, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao joined in on the action. In a brief Twitter post, the Binance chief executive asserted that if there was any more of this “s*it,” writing in reference to the legal action, he would delist the crypto asset that Wright holds so dear. And it appears he wasn’t kidding.

Binance, Blockchain.Com, And ShapeShift Shun Bitcoin SV

As NewsBTC reported on Monday, days after Zhao’s promise, the Malta-registered exchange actually took action, making good on its semi-threat. Binance posted a blog post that morning, which outlined that BSV doesn’t meet its standards, and would thus be delisted by April 22nd, just over a week away. Hours after Binance’s announcement, other prominent crypto startups followed suit.

In a statement of approval, Erik Voorhees, an anti-establishment figure that heads the instant crypto trading platform ShapeShift, claimed that his firm stands by Binance. He claimed that within 48 hours of him publishing the tweet, ShapeShift would remove support for trading Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision. Hours later, wallet provider Blockchain.com followed suit.

Similarly to how Voorhees made his announcement, the San Francisco-based fintech firm’s chief executive, Peter Smith, revealed on Twitter that in the next thirty days, his firm will “close out support for BSV transactions,” adding that users of the Bitcoin derivative should “go somewhere else.”

In the next thirty days, we will end even close out support for #BSV transactions. To use #BSV, go somewhere else! https://t.co/PCsbtn3MHG https://t.co/oSN19wIWre

— Peter Smith (@OneMorePeter) April 15, 2019

Binance’s and Blockchain’s removal of BSV is arguably a huge blow, as the two firms are the biggest exchange and the most widely-used crypto asset wallet respectively. But this might be just the tip of the iceberg. In a poll published early Monday, the team at Kraken, the fourth largest BTC exchange as per Bitwise’s list of bonafide platforms, asked if they should follow Binance’s footsteps. The response to the poll was overwhelmingly positive, with more than 70% of 50,000 voters requesting for BSV’s removal from the popular site.

Considering that Binance, ShapeShift, and Blockchain have set a precedent for the sudden removal of a cryptocurrency, and a leading Bitcoin fork no less, Kraken may soon follow through.

Well Within Exchanges’ Rights

While the delistings from the aforementioned upstarts have been widely lauded, Calvin Ayre of the BSV camp recently took to Twitter to express that Binance’s sudden act, for instance, is “illegal and corrupt.” But is this true?

According to industry lawyer Jake Chervinsky, no, far from. The commentator explained that per his knowledge of crypto’s ins and outs, “crypto exchanges are private companies,” thus meaning that have no obligation to keep an asset on their platform, adding that if “broad social consensus” is pushing for a firm to take action, “there’s nothing bad [with that].”

As far as I'm concerned, crypto exchanges are private companies under no obligation to list any particular asset & there's nothing bad about a delisting based on broad social consensus.

Some people complaining today were also calling for delistings of scam ICOs two years ago.

IFTTT

[joshuajacksonlyblog]

Is the Whole Bitcoin SV Incident Hurting the Image of the Crypto Industry?

It isn’t a secret that the past few weeks in the crypto ecosystem have been tumultuous ones. As Bitcoin (BTC) rallied past $5,000, sparking claims that the bottom is in, Australian cryptographer Craig Wright and his crew, all fans of Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV), found themselves in a few tussles on Crypto Twitter. It wasn’t exactly pretty.

Related Reading: Why This Maximalist Moved to SV: “BTC Was Taken Over by Socialists”

The online beef went so far that Wright looked to bring the discourse to the real world, purportedly sending letters of intent to sue/bring legal action against his countless critics. Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin and Hodlonaut, the creator of the Lightning Network Torch project and a catalyst for newfound adoption, were two entities reportedly served.

Although it wasn’t confirmed whether or not the said letters reached the desks of their targets, the crypto community quickly expressed their distaste for such an act. After Hodlonaut’s Twitter page was shuttered, users across the cryptosphere began to rally to the user’s side, shunning Craig Wright, Canadian entrepreneur Calvin Ayre, and their legal team for enlisting such a scare strategy.

After Peter McCormack, Matt Odell, and other prominent Bitcoiners bashed the BSV camp, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao joined in on the action. In a brief Twitter post, the Binance chief executive asserted that if there was any more of this “s*it,” writing in reference to the legal action, he would delist the crypto asset that Wright holds so dear. And it appears he wasn’t kidding.

Binance, Blockchain.Com, And ShapeShift Shun Bitcoin SV

As NewsBTC reported on Monday, days after Zhao’s promise, the Malta-registered exchange actually took action, making good on its semi-threat. Binance posted a blog post that morning, which outlined that BSV doesn’t meet its standards, and would thus be delisted by April 22nd, just over a week away. Hours after Binance’s announcement, other prominent crypto startups followed suit.

In a statement of approval, Erik Voorhees, an anti-establishment figure that heads the instant crypto trading platform ShapeShift, claimed that his firm stands by Binance. He claimed that within 48 hours of him publishing the tweet, ShapeShift would remove support for trading Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision. Hours later, wallet provider Blockchain.com followed suit.

Similarly to how Voorhees made his announcement, the San Francisco-based fintech firm’s chief executive, Peter Smith, revealed on Twitter that in the next thirty days, his firm will “close out support for BSV transactions,” adding that users of the Bitcoin derivative should “go somewhere else.”

In the next thirty days, we will end even close out support for #BSV transactions. To use #BSV, go somewhere else! https://t.co/PCsbtn3MHG https://t.co/oSN19wIWre

— Peter Smith (@OneMorePeter) April 15, 2019

Binance’s and Blockchain’s removal of BSV is arguably a huge blow, as the two firms are the biggest exchange and the most widely-used crypto asset wallet respectively. But this might be just the tip of the iceberg. In a poll published early Monday, the team at Kraken, the fourth largest BTC exchange as per Bitwise’s list of bonafide platforms, asked if they should follow Binance’s footsteps. The response to the poll was overwhelmingly positive, with more than 70% of 50,000 voters requesting for BSV’s removal from the popular site.

Considering that Binance, ShapeShift, and Blockchain have set a precedent for the sudden removal of a cryptocurrency, and a leading Bitcoin fork no less, Kraken may soon follow through.

Well Within Exchanges’ Rights

While the delistings from the aforementioned upstarts have been widely lauded, Calvin Ayre of the BSV camp recently took to Twitter to express that Binance’s sudden act, for instance, is “illegal and corrupt.” But is this true?

According to industry lawyer Jake Chervinsky, no, far from. The commentator explained that per his knowledge of crypto’s ins and outs, “crypto exchanges are private companies,” thus meaning that have no obligation to keep an asset on their platform, adding that if “broad social consensus” is pushing for a firm to take action, “there’s nothing bad [with that].”

As far as I'm concerned, crypto exchanges are private companies under no obligation to list any particular asset & there's nothing bad about a delisting based on broad social consensus.

Some people complaining today were also calling for delistings of scam ICOs two years ago.

IFTTT

[brettzjacksonblog]

Is the Whole Bitcoin SV Incident Hurting the Image of the Crypto Industry?

It isn’t a secret that the past few weeks in the crypto ecosystem have been tumultuous ones. As Bitcoin (BTC) rallied past $5,000, sparking claims that the bottom is in, Australian cryptographer Craig Wright and his crew, all fans of Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV), found themselves in a few tussles on Crypto Twitter. It wasn’t exactly pretty.

Related Reading: Why This Maximalist Moved to SV: “BTC Was Taken Over by Socialists”

The online beef went so far that Wright looked to bring the discourse to the real world, purportedly sending letters of intent to sue/bring legal action against his countless critics. Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin and Hodlonaut, the creator of the Lightning Network Torch project and a catalyst for newfound adoption, were two entities reportedly served.

Although it wasn’t confirmed whether or not the said letters reached the desks of their targets, the crypto community quickly expressed their distaste for such an act. After Hodlonaut’s Twitter page was shuttered, users across the cryptosphere began to rally to the user’s side, shunning Craig Wright, Canadian entrepreneur Calvin Ayre, and their legal team for enlisting such a scare strategy.

After Peter McCormack, Matt Odell, and other prominent Bitcoiners bashed the BSV camp, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao joined in on the action. In a brief Twitter post, the Binance chief executive asserted that if there was any more of this “s*it,” writing in reference to the legal action, he would delist the crypto asset that Wright holds so dear. And it appears he wasn’t kidding.

Binance, Blockchain.Com, And ShapeShift Shun Bitcoin SV

As NewsBTC reported on Monday, days after Zhao’s promise, the Malta-registered exchange actually took action, making good on its semi-threat. Binance posted a blog post that morning, which outlined that BSV doesn’t meet its standards, and would thus be delisted by April 22nd, just over a week away. Hours after Binance’s announcement, other prominent crypto startups followed suit.

In a statement of approval, Erik Voorhees, an anti-establishment figure that heads the instant crypto trading platform ShapeShift, claimed that his firm stands by Binance. He claimed that within 48 hours of him publishing the tweet, ShapeShift would remove support for trading Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision. Hours later, wallet provider Blockchain.com followed suit.

Similarly to how Voorhees made his announcement, the San Francisco-based fintech firm’s chief executive, Peter Smith, revealed on Twitter that in the next thirty days, his firm will “close out support for BSV transactions,” adding that users of the Bitcoin derivative should “go somewhere else.”

In the next thirty days, we will end even close out support for #BSV transactions. To use #BSV, go somewhere else! https://t.co/PCsbtn3MHG https://t.co/oSN19wIWre

— Peter Smith (@OneMorePeter) April 15, 2019

Binance’s and Blockchain’s removal of BSV is arguably a huge blow, as the two firms are the biggest exchange and the most widely-used crypto asset wallet respectively. But this might be just the tip of the iceberg. In a poll published early Monday, the team at Kraken, the fourth largest BTC exchange as per Bitwise’s list of bonafide platforms, asked if they should follow Binance’s footsteps. The response to the poll was overwhelmingly positive, with more than 70% of 50,000 voters requesting for BSV’s removal from the popular site.

Considering that Binance, ShapeShift, and Blockchain have set a precedent for the sudden removal of a cryptocurrency, and a leading Bitcoin fork no less, Kraken may soon follow through.

Well Within Exchanges’ Rights

While the delistings from the aforementioned upstarts have been widely lauded, Calvin Ayre of the BSV camp recently took to Twitter to express that Binance’s sudden act, for instance, is “illegal and corrupt.” But is this true?

According to industry lawyer Jake Chervinsky, no, far from. The commentator explained that per his knowledge of crypto’s ins and outs, “crypto exchanges are private companies,” thus meaning that have no obligation to keep an asset on their platform, adding that if “broad social consensus” is pushing for a firm to take action, “there’s nothing bad [with that].”

As far as I'm concerned, crypto exchanges are private companies under no obligation to list any particular asset & there's nothing bad about a delisting based on broad social consensus.

Some people complaining today were also calling for delistings of scam ICOs two years ago.

IFTTT

[click2watch]

SEC’s Crypto Token Framework Falls Short of Clear and Actionable Guidance

The Takeaway:

The SEC’s new guidance outlines how it will apply the decades-old Howey test to crypto assets.

However, there remain a number of unanswered questions, including how the broad definition of “active participants” might impact projects; how startups based overseas are impacted and when and how a token might no longer be a security.

While legal experts and industry participants see this as a positive first step, the consensus appears to be that there are still many issues still to be discussed.

Well, it’s a start.

That was the general feeling among blockchain lawyers and regulatory experts following the long-awaited release Wednesday of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidance for startups looking to issue tokens.

While the additional clarity was certainly welcome, the new framework is lacking in some key areas, these industry members said. In particular, questions remain about how broadly this guidance applies and what startups can actually take away from the new framework.

The SEC published its “plain English” guidance nearly six months after William Hinman, the SEC Director of Corporation Finance, announced the regulator was developing it. Speaking to CoinDesk Wednesday, Hinman said the guidance should be useful for startups to determine whether their offerings qualify as securities.

“We try to give an example of what might be a security and also what might not be. We’re also trying to say that we recognize in certain cases the instrument is offered and sold for actual use,” he said, adding:

“One thing we’re trying to make clear in this analysis is that not one of these factors is dispositive, you have to look at the whole mix.”

Moreover, Wednesday’s guidance is not legally binding.

The question of whether a token is a security is far more than academic, however. Because if a token does meet the definition, it means the startup or blockchain project selling it must follow longstanding, expensive and onerous registration requirements – and an issuer that fails to do so is breaking federal law.

With such high stakes, the SEC’s framework was not quite the clarifying document many had hoped for.

“While it’s helpful and it’s good to see the SEC remains focused in this area, it’s not quite as useful as a law or a rule or even formal guidance would be,” said Andrew Hinkes, an attorney with Carlton Fields and general counsel for the investment bank Athena Blockchain. “A lot of it is a reiteration of what the law is and has been.”

However, there are many new details in Wednesday’s document, he said, starting with the concept of “active participants” (APs). In the SEC’s guidance, active participants are broadly defined, and could be any entity which manages a project, but may also refer to promoters, sponsors or other third parties which have an impact on the possible success of an enterprise.

The lack of specificity is worth noting, Hinkes said, adding:

“This is a pretty broad and pretty flexibly defined group and by the look of this AP definition, you start to wonder, will promoters be involved? Will independent activists or shareholders be determined to be APs and then swept into this analysis?”

Katherine Wu, a lawyer and former SEC staffer, told CoinDesk via email that the definition of “active participant” may pose issues for startups.

“Taken liberally, that definition could really impact and even hinder the process in which a token project/start-up can decentralize itself,” she said.

Jake Chervinsky, an attorney with Kobre Kim, told CoinDesk via email that in his view, the SEC used the term to make clear to projects that their tokens can qualify as securities even if the original token issuer is not involved with any expectation of profit.

“In other words, if Company A sells a token on the promise that purchasers will profit from Company B’s efforts, the token could still be a security even if Company A has nothing to do with the project after the token is issued. I do think there could be some token projects in this situation,” he said.

The onus would be on Company A to watch for this sort of scenario, he added.

Precedents

The main precedent-setting question that remains unanswered, Hinkes said, is when do tokens no longer qualify as securities, and when would the SEC be able to make that determination.

Hailey Lennon, head of legal and regulatory affairs with bitFlyer USA, told CoinDesk that the guidance appears to be primarily summarizing “additional considerations for the industry” in terms of evaluating their token offerings.

“I believe today’s SEC Framework is intended to help the industry and give companies more factors to consider,” she said. Yet, referring to the agency’s decades-old method for determining whether something is a security, Lennon added:

“Today’s SEC Framework provides additional clarity but it does not give the industry all the answers. … The ‘Other Relevant Considerations’ on page 9 and 10 illustrate that digital assets don’t fit neatly into the Howey test and there are additional factors from cases that the industry needs to consider.”

Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at industry lobbyist Coin Center, told CoinDesk in a statement via a spokesperson that while the conclusion to the SEC’s guidance is not necessarily new, the fact that the regulator is “saying it more clearly than ever” is still significant.

The guidance, in particular, helps startups and developers “who have done the right thing” know that they are in compliance, he said.

On the flip side, it will be interesting to see how the framework is used with regard to future enforcement actions, said Philip Moustakis, an attorney with Seward and Kissel and formerly with the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and Cyber Unit.

Lennon echoed his comments, saying that “these factors could be used to justify additional enforcement actions down the road.”

Other questions

The framework also leaves unanswered other questions about federal securities laws and their application to crypto tokens, Chervinsky said.

In particular, it is unclear whether token sales conducted outside the U.S. fall under the SEC’s jurisdiction.

“It isn’t clear to me that crypto companies will be able to reach confident conclusions about their compliance status through this framework alone,” he said.

It’s an issue that has been raised before. Speaking in New York in March, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce explained that startups in other nations can easily come into contact with U.S. securities laws without aiming to do so.

This raises the question of how and when the SEC should enforce actions against startups outside the U.S., she said, explaining:

“If you’re reaching out to U.S. investors, you can come into contact with our securities laws. … When I see those kinds of enforcement cases, I often say to my colleagues, ‘all right, do we really expect someone who’s based somewhere, in India for example, to be thinking about U.S. securities laws at all times?’ and I think that’s not reasonable.”

That being said, some startups do very deliberately reach out to U.S. investors, and in those cases, the startups must be careful as they “can easily come into contact with our laws,” she said.

Innovation

Unanswered questions aside, some said Wednesday’s guidance – and an accompanying missive to an individual company – might simply continue to stifle innovation in the space.

The same day as issuing the framework, the SEC also published its first-ever “no-action letter,” allowing TurnKey Jet LLC to initiate a token sale. Again, while the headline was a cause for celebration, the startup was subject to heavy restrictions. (TurnKey went back and forth with the SEC for nearly a year before it received the letter.)

“I would also be remiss if I didn’t note that the release of this framework was timed along with the … letter,” Wu said. “In my opinion, the no-action letter is woefully inadequate to address questions for a lot of token projects, because the issue at hand was akin to tokenizing airline miles; nothing super innovative there.”

Returning to the framework, Kristin Smith, the director of the Blockchain Association, a D.C.-based lobbying group, told CoinDesk in a statement that while the group appreciates that the SEC is looking at how to apply securities laws to the crypto space, “this guidance presents a framework that will stifle investment in and innovation of open blockchain networks in the United States.”

Still, Chervinsky said, the framework does provide a deep, thorough analysis of how the Howey test applies to digital assets, and is clearer than any statements the SEC has previously issued. Referring to the agency’s last major pronouncement on the matter nearly two years ago, he added:

“The Framework effectively replaces the DAO Report as the SEC’s go-to explanation for whether and when digital assets qualify as regulated securities, and by including a list of crypto-specific characteristics relevant to the Howey analysis, the Framework is many times more helpful than the DAO Report ever was.”

Hinkes agreed, saying that the fact that the regulator is continuing to engage with the marketplace bodes well for the industry.

“It’s positive for the digital asset market to see the regulators engage with the marketplace, to continue to bring better clarity to the marketplace and to me this is a positive sign for the industry even in the form of a statement that’s not a rule or guidance or a law,” Hinkes said.

William Hinman image via BankXRP/YouTube

This news post is collected from CoinDesk

Recommended Read

Editor choice

BinBot Pro – Safest & Highly Recommended Binary Options Auto Trading Robot

Do you live in a country like USA or Canada where using automated trading systems is a problem? If you do then now we ...

9.5

Demo & Pro Version Try It Now

Read full review

The post SEC’s Crypto Token Framework Falls Short of Clear and Actionable Guidance appeared first on Click 2 Watch.

More Details Here → https://click2.watch/secs-crypto-token-framework-falls-short-of-clear-and-actionable-guidance

[detikdax-blog]

Pengacara: Ripple Bumping Securities Gugatan ke Pengadilan Federal adalah Brilliant

Minggu ini, tim hukum Ripple Labs menghapus gugatan sekuritas yang tertunda terkait dengan sifat peraturan XRP, cryptocurrency asli dari Ripple blockchain, ke pengadilan federal. Perwakilan Ripple berpendapat bahwa gugatan class action diprakarsai oleh sekelompok investor tanpa batasan geografis dan dengan demikian, kasus tersebut tidak boleh ditangani oleh pengadilan negara. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom mitra litigasi Peter Morrison menekankan bahwa karena jumlah kontroversi melebihi $ 5 juta dan dibawa oleh lebih dari 100 anggota, Ripple Labs berhak menghapus gugatan ke pengadilan federal. “Tindakan kelas yang diduga dapat dipindahkan ke pengadilan distrik federal yang sesuai jika (1) tindakan dimaksudkan sebagai tindakan 'kelas' yang diajukan atas nama 100 atau lebih anggota; (2) setiap anggota dari golongan penggugat adalah warga negara dari negara yang berbeda dari terdakwa; dan (3) jumlah kontroversi melebihi $ 5 juta. ”

Brilliance Taktis

Menurut Jake Chervinsky, seorang pengacara pertahanan pemerintah dan pengacara litigasi sekuritas di Kobre & Kim, langkah tim hukum Ripple Labs untuk menabrak gugatan sekuritas yang melibatkan XRP ke pengadilan federal adalah "brilian." Mengutip laporan Law.com, Chervinsky berkata : “Tim hukum Ripple menunjukkan kecemerlangan taktis di sini. Sulit untuk menjelaskan manuver prosedural dalam satu tweet & saya tidak akan mem-thread ini, tetapi cukup untuk mengatakan ini adalah usaha yang sangat licik untuk menjadi federal. Mungkin tidak berfungsi, tapi licin. " Jika gugatan class action tetap di pengadilan negara bagian California, Chervinsky menyatakan bahwa itu masih bisa mencakup gugatan class action nasional. Dia menyatakan tim hukum Ripple Labs membutuhkan cara untuk membenarkan relokasi tindakan kelas dari pengadilan negara ke pengadilan federal. “Pengadilan negara menjalankan yurisdiksi atas penduduk negara-negara lain sepanjang waktu. Ini tidak biasa untuk tindakan kelas nasional yang harus diselesaikan di pengadilan negara. Juga, Securities Act of 1933 memberikan pengadilan negara bagian dan federal yurisdiksi konkuren atas klaim sipil pribadi, ”katanya, dengan alasan gugatan class action dapat ditangani di tingkat pengadilan negara bagian. I can't speak to their odds of winning since the case is still so young & I don't know all the facts, but it's fair to say Ripple's lawyers think they have better odds of winning in federal court than in state court (or else they wouldn't be trying so hard to remove the case). — Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) November 9, 2018 Chversinky menjelaskan bahwa tim Ripple Labs kemungkinan melihat peluang untuk memenangkan gugatan class action yang lebih tinggi di pengadilan federal daripada di pengadilan negara, karena tim menempatkan upaya signifikan dalam menghapus kasus ini. Jika pengadilan federal Amerika Serikat mendukung Ripple Labs dalam gugatan class action, maka itu akan memberikan kejelasan mengenai sifat peraturan XRP untuk pertama kalinya dalam sejarah negara, dan perusahaan dapat mengklarifikasi sekali dan untuk semua XRP tersebut. tidak dianggap sebagai keamanan berdasarkan hukum yang ada di AS.

Tim Hukum Ripple Labs Percaya Diri

Morrison mengklaim bahwa penggugat tidak mengakui bahwa kurangnya informasi tentang sifat transaksi XRP menyebabkan kebingungan dalam proses investasi dalam aset dan dengan demikian, ruang lingkup gugatan yang diajukan oleh penggugat masih belum jelas. “Penggugat tidak menuduh bahwa mereka tidak memiliki informasi tentang sifat dari transaksi ini. Namun demikian, Penggugat mengklaim bahwa mereka entah bagaimana terluka karena Tergugat diduga diminta untuk mendaftarkan XRP sebagai 'keamanan' dengan tetapi gagal melakukannya. ” Read the full article

[a-kasoutuukaantena-blog]

米国会は当分仮想通貨に関して立法せず｜専門弁護士が公聴会を分析、見えてきた2つの懸念点

専門弁護士が公聴会を分析 専門弁護士のJake Chervinsky氏が、米時間11日に行われた米国会の公聴会での仮想通貨に関する議論を受け、自身のTwitterで詳細な分析を記述した。彼は仮想通貨推進派のPeter Van Valkenburgh氏のパフォーマンスを高く評価する一方で、対する反対派のNouriel Roubini氏は議論の質が低いと評価している。 議論のまとめ Chervinsky弁護士は、懸念点をあげながらも、概ね意義のある議会だったと認めており、議員のこの領域への理解も少しずつではあるが進歩していると論じた。 議論内容に関する分析と各参加者の印象

昨日行われた米国会の公聴会で仮想通貨に関する議論が行われ、経済学者のNouriel Roubini氏（仮想通貨反対派）とCoin CenterのPeter Van…

[michaelbennettcrypto]

Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails

Global economist Nouriel Roubini expressed his rage against Bitcoin and blockchain while displaying his profound lack of understanding in the field.

A Political Rap against Crypto

Roubini was present at an informational hearing round “Exploring the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Ecosystem” organized by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, alongside Peter Van Valkenburgh, the Director of Research at Coin Center, a nonprofit crypto advocacy organization. The purpose of the hearing was to listen to both the sides as the House of Representatives draft bills to regulate the US crypto industry.

Roubini ranted against crypto on several accounts during his testimony, calling Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” and blockchain “the most hyped technology ever.” He continuously reminded the Senate that only criminals use crypto, that mining is bad for the environment, that decentralization is ridiculous, that most tokens are non-compliant securities, that utility tokens take society back to the stone age, that blockchain is no better than spreadsheets, and that no corporation or government would like to run a state on a public ledger.

Roubini also tried to present evidence that how a thriving industry like crypto is poised to fail, saying, for instance, that Bitcoin transaction fees are $55, and that it cannot scale to cater for global financial volume.

“Paying 55-dollars of transaction costs to buy a $2 coffee cup is [obviously] never going to lead Bitcoin to become a transaction currency,” the economist wrote.

Community Reaction

The crypto community treated Roubini’s accusation as [yet] another attempt of a great economist to malign Bitcoin without actually understanding the underlying technology. But the fact that he made those accusations before the US Congress upper chamber raised concerns, given it could be misperceived as they go ahead drafting a regulation.

4/ For example, in his written testimony, Nouriel says bitcoin fees are $55. That's just wrong. He says crypto can't scale, but ignores layer 2 solutions. He says 51% attacks are frequent & easy, but provides no support.

It's hard to have a productive conversation on this basis.

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) October 12, 2018

To begin with, to say Bitcoin transaction fees are as high as $55 shows Roubini’s lack of understanding. Bitcoin commission had crossed the $50-mark in January 2018. He chose not to mention that the commission fees nosedived later to as low as $1 per transaction. Nevertheless, it is true that buying a coffee by paying $55 in commissions is not an ideal situation, but sending thousands of dollars over blockchain by paying the same fees is more than excellent. It is only about choice, in the end, and blockchain offers it to the consumers around the world.

The economists who share Roubini’s opinion first need to understand how a decentralized network like Bitcoin governs at the first place. The system is run by mathematics in which each participant is rewarded based on a pre-written formula that is already in the code. On the top of that, nodes that run the Bitcoin network are paid in BTC, not the dollar. When transaction fees reached $55, the value of Bitcoin was higher, and the number of users was less.

Therefore, in Bitcoin, users have the flexibility to define use-case, which Roubini chose to ignore as he continued his biased rant against the technology. If a crypto user has to pay his merchant, he always has the flexibility to opt for cheaper stablecoin while considering Bitcoin as his store of value.

And as far as scaling is concerned, Bitcoin is software in the making. The core team has already released two working solutions to cater to larger transactional volumes. Roubini should look into it before deciding to continue his attacks on crypto.

The post Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails appeared first on NewsBTC.

from Cryptocracken WP https://ift.tt/2IOTacC via IFTTT

[brettzjacksonblog]

Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails

Global economist Nouriel Roubini expressed his rage against Bitcoin and blockchain while displaying his profound lack of understanding in the field.

A Political Rap against Crypto

Roubini was present at an informational hearing round “Exploring the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Ecosystem” organized by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, alongside Peter Van Valkenburgh, the Director of Research at Coin Center, a nonprofit crypto advocacy organization. The purpose of the hearing was to listen to both the sides as the House of Representatives draft bills to regulate the US crypto industry.

Roubini ranted against crypto on several accounts during his testimony, calling Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” and blockchain “the most hyped technology ever.” He continuously reminded the Senate that only criminals use crypto, that mining is bad for the environment, that decentralization is ridiculous, that most tokens are non-compliant securities, that utility tokens take society back to the stone age, that blockchain is no better than spreadsheets, and that no corporation or government would like to run a state on a public ledger.

Roubini also tried to present evidence that how a thriving industry like crypto is poised to fail, saying, for instance, that Bitcoin transaction fees are $55, and that it cannot scale to cater for global financial volume.

“Paying 55-dollars of transaction costs to buy a $2 coffee cup is [obviously] never going to lead Bitcoin to become a transaction currency,” the economist wrote.

Community Reaction

The crypto community treated Roubini’s accusation as [yet] another attempt of a great economist to malign Bitcoin without actually understanding the underlying technology. But the fact that he made those accusations before the US Congress upper chamber raised concerns, given it could be misperceived as they go ahead drafting a regulation.

4/ For example, in his written testimony, Nouriel says bitcoin fees are $55. That's just wrong. He says crypto can't scale, but ignores layer 2 solutions. He says 51% attacks are frequent & easy, but provides no support.

It's hard to have a productive conversation on this basis.

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) October 12, 2018

To begin with, to say Bitcoin transaction fees are as high as $55 shows Roubini’s lack of understanding. Bitcoin commission had crossed the $50-mark in January 2018. He chose not to mention that the commission fees nosedived later to as low as $1 per transaction. Nevertheless, it is true that buying a coffee by paying $55 in commissions is not an ideal situation, but sending thousands of dollars over blockchain by paying the same fees is more than excellent. It is only about choice, in the end, and blockchain offers it to the consumers around the world.

The economists who share Roubini’s opinion first need to understand how a decentralized network like Bitcoin governs at the first place. The system is run by mathematics in which each participant is rewarded based on a pre-written formula that is already in the code. On the top of that, nodes that run the Bitcoin network are paid in BTC, not the dollar. When transaction fees reached $55, the value of Bitcoin was higher, and the number of users was less.

Therefore, in Bitcoin, users have the flexibility to define use-case, which Roubini chose to ignore as he continued his biased rant against the technology. If a crypto user has to pay his merchant, he always has the flexibility to opt for cheaper stablecoin while considering Bitcoin as his store of value.

And as far as scaling is concerned, Bitcoin is software in the making. The core team has already released two working solutions to cater to larger transactional volumes. Roubini should look into it before deciding to continue his attacks on crypto.

The post Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails appeared first on NewsBTC.

from CryptoCracken SMFeed https://ift.tt/2IOTacC via IFTTT

[joshuajacksonlyblog]

Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails

Global economist Nouriel Roubini expressed his rage against Bitcoin and blockchain while displaying his profound lack of understanding in the field.

A Political Rap against Crypto

Roubini was present at an informational hearing round “Exploring the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Ecosystem” organized by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, alongside Peter Van Valkenburgh, the Director of Research at Coin Center, a nonprofit crypto advocacy organization. The purpose of the hearing was to listen to both the sides as the House of Representatives draft bills to regulate the US crypto industry.

Roubini ranted against crypto on several accounts during his testimony, calling Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” and blockchain “the most hyped technology ever.” He continuously reminded the Senate that only criminals use crypto, that mining is bad for the environment, that decentralization is ridiculous, that most tokens are non-compliant securities, that utility tokens take society back to the stone age, that blockchain is no better than spreadsheets, and that no corporation or government would like to run a state on a public ledger.

Roubini also tried to present evidence that how a thriving industry like crypto is poised to fail, saying, for instance, that Bitcoin transaction fees are $55, and that it cannot scale to cater for global financial volume.

“Paying 55-dollars of transaction costs to buy a $2 coffee cup is [obviously] never going to lead Bitcoin to become a transaction currency,” the economist wrote.

Community Reaction

The crypto community treated Roubini’s accusation as [yet] another attempt of a great economist to malign Bitcoin without actually understanding the underlying technology. But the fact that he made those accusations before the US Congress upper chamber raised concerns, given it could be misperceived as they go ahead drafting a regulation.

4/ For example, in his written testimony, Nouriel says bitcoin fees are $55. That's just wrong. He says crypto can't scale, but ignores layer 2 solutions. He says 51% attacks are frequent & easy, but provides no support.

It's hard to have a productive conversation on this basis.

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) October 12, 2018

To begin with, to say Bitcoin transaction fees are as high as $55 shows Roubini’s lack of understanding. Bitcoin commission had crossed the $50-mark in January 2018. He chose not to mention that the commission fees nosedived later to as low as $1 per transaction. Nevertheless, it is true that buying a coffee by paying $55 in commissions is not an ideal situation, but sending thousands of dollars over blockchain by paying the same fees is more than excellent. It is only about choice, in the end, and blockchain offers it to the consumers around the world.

The economists who share Roubini’s opinion first need to understand how a decentralized network like Bitcoin governs at the first place. The system is run by mathematics in which each participant is rewarded based on a pre-written formula that is already in the code. On the top of that, nodes that run the Bitcoin network are paid in BTC, not the dollar. When transaction fees reached $55, the value of Bitcoin was higher, and the number of users was less.

Therefore, in Bitcoin, users have the flexibility to define use-case, which Roubini chose to ignore as he continued his biased rant against the technology. If a crypto user has to pay his merchant, he always has the flexibility to opt for cheaper stablecoin while considering Bitcoin as his store of value.

And as far as scaling is concerned, Bitcoin is software in the making. The core team has already released two working solutions to cater to larger transactional volumes. Roubini should look into it before deciding to continue his attacks on crypto.

The post Nouriel Roubini Tries to Attack Bitcoin by Saying Fees Cost $55, Fails appeared first on NewsBTC.

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/2IOTacC via IFTTT

[detikdax-blog]

Lawyer: Ripple Bumping Securities Lawsuit to Federal Court is Brilliant

Minggu ini, tim hukum Ripple Labs menghapus gugatan sekuritas yang tertunda terkait dengan sifat peraturan XRP, cryptocurrency asli dari Ripple blockchain, ke pengadilan federal. Perwakilan Ripple berpendapat bahwa gugatan class action diprakarsai oleh sekelompok investor tanpa batasan geografis dan dengan demikian, kasus tersebut tidak boleh ditangani oleh pengadilan negara. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom mitra litigasi Peter Morrison menekankan bahwa karena jumlah kontroversi melebihi $ 5 juta dan dibawa oleh lebih dari 100 anggota, Ripple Labs berhak menghapus gugatan ke pengadilan federal. “Tindakan kelas yang diduga dapat dipindahkan ke pengadilan distrik federal yang sesuai jika (1) tindakan dimaksudkan sebagai tindakan 'kelas' yang diajukan atas nama 100 atau lebih anggota; (2) setiap anggota dari golongan penggugat adalah warga negara dari negara yang berbeda dari terdakwa; dan (3) jumlah kontroversi melebihi $ 5 juta. ”

Brilliance Taktis

Menurut Jake Chervinsky, seorang pengacara pertahanan pemerintah dan pengacara litigasi sekuritas di Kobre & Kim, langkah tim hukum Ripple Labs untuk menabrak gugatan sekuritas yang melibatkan XRP ke pengadilan federal adalah "brilian." Mengutip laporan Law.com, Chervinsky berkata : “Tim hukum Ripple menunjukkan kecemerlangan taktis di sini. Sulit untuk menjelaskan manuver prosedural dalam satu tweet & saya tidak akan mem-thread ini, tetapi cukup untuk mengatakan ini adalah usaha yang sangat licik untuk menjadi federal. Mungkin tidak berfungsi, tapi licin. " Jika gugatan class action tetap di pengadilan negara bagian California, Chervinsky menyatakan bahwa itu masih bisa mencakup gugatan class action nasional. Dia menyatakan tim hukum Ripple Labs membutuhkan cara untuk membenarkan relokasi tindakan kelas dari pengadilan negara ke pengadilan federal. “Pengadilan negara menjalankan yurisdiksi atas penduduk negara-negara lain sepanjang waktu. Ini tidak biasa untuk tindakan kelas nasional yang harus diselesaikan di pengadilan negara. Juga, Securities Act of 1933 memberikan pengadilan negara bagian dan federal yurisdiksi konkuren atas klaim sipil pribadi, ”katanya, dengan alasan gugatan class action dapat ditangani di tingkat pengadilan negara bagian. I can't speak to their odds of winning since the case is still so young & I don't know all the facts, but it's fair to say Ripple's lawyers think they have better odds of winning in federal court than in state court (or else they wouldn't be trying so hard to remove the case). — Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) November 9, 2018 Chversinky menjelaskan bahwa tim Ripple Labs kemungkinan melihat peluang untuk memenangkan gugatan class action yang lebih tinggi di pengadilan federal daripada di pengadilan negara, karena tim menempatkan upaya signifikan dalam menghapus kasus ini. Jika pengadilan federal Amerika Serikat mendukung Ripple Labs dalam gugatan class action, maka itu akan memberikan kejelasan mengenai sifat peraturan XRP untuk pertama kalinya dalam sejarah negara, dan perusahaan dapat mengklarifikasi sekali dan untuk semua XRP tersebut. tidak dianggap sebagai keamanan berdasarkan hukum yang ada di AS.

Tim Hukum Ripple Labs Percaya Diri

Morrison mengklaim bahwa penggugat tidak mengakui bahwa kurangnya informasi tentang sifat transaksi XRP menyebabkan kebingungan dalam proses investasi dalam aset dan dengan demikian, ruang lingkup gugatan yang diajukan oleh penggugat masih belum jelas. “Penggugat tidak menuduh bahwa mereka tidak memiliki informasi tentang sifat dari transaksi ini. Namun demikian, Penggugat mengklaim bahwa mereka entah bagaimana terluka karena Tergugat diduga diminta untuk mendaftarkan XRP sebagai 'keamanan' dengan tetapi gagal melakukannya. ” Read the full article