Is Cryptocurrency Like Stocks and Bonds? Courts Move Closer to an Answer.

By Matthew Goldstein and David Yaffe-Bellany. (The New York Times). January 26, 2024.

For more than a decade, the pioneers of the cryptocurrency industry envisioned digital coins as an alternate branch of finance, a renegade sector that would operate outside the reach of big banks and government regulators.

But as digital currencies like Bitcoin and Ether became more mainstream, the crypto industry collided with a 1946 Supreme Court decision that created what is known as the Howey Test, a legal analysis that determines when a financial product becomes subject to the same strict rules as stocks and bonds.

In recent years, regulators have seized on that legal precedent to argue that cryptocurrencies are just another security, like shares of Apple or General Motors. The crypto industry has fought back, leaving it in a legal gray zone with an uncertain future in the United States.

Now the long-running dispute is edging closer to a resolution, as federal judges begin weighing in on a series of lawsuits by the nation’s top securities regulator against some of the largest crypto firms. This month, judges held hearings in two of the most consequential cases, which could dictate whether the multitrillion-dollar crypto industry can continue growing in the United States.

Read more here: The New York Times.

Crypto Has ‘No Innate or Inherent Value’, SEC Argues in Coinbase Case

By Nicholas Morgan. (Decrypt). October 8, 2023.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is arguing that cryptocurrencies lack any “innate or inherent value” as part of their case against Coinbase in federal court—prompting eye rolls from Coinbase and crypto watchers.

In response to a motion to throw out the agency’s lawsuit filed over the summer, the SEC petitioned a judge to reject Coinbase’s stance that cryptocurrency trading does not count as an investment contract between parties. It justified its position by repeating its position that federal securities laws are designed to be interpreted flexibly through the legal doctrine known as the “Howey Test.”

Read the full piece from Decrypt here: “Crypto Has ‘No Innate or Inherent Value’, SEC Argues in Coinbase Case

SEC Crypto Litigation Ventures Into Dangerous Legal Territory

By John E. Deaton.

The US Supreme Court issued the landmark SEC V. Howey decision in 1946, laying out a specific definition of what constitutes a security. Those justices couldn’t have guessed how complex digital commerce over encrypted lines of computer code would fit in almost a century later.

The Securities and Exchange Commission under Chairman Gary Gensler has its own idea of how cryptocurrencies should be regulated today, but bears little resemblance to that decision—and it’s straying into dangerous legal territory in court.

The Howey case involved orange groves sold by a Florida resort to tourists in a scheme where the investors earned passive income from the resort’s management and commercialization of the oranges. The so-called Howey test says a transaction is a security if it is an investment of money, in a common enterprise, with a reasonable expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others. All three prongs of the test must be met.

Hundreds of federal cases that followed found unregistered securities in the packaging and sales of whiskeycondos, chinchillas, oil and gas, and beavers. A scheme to sell any asset, including cryptocurrencies, could easily fit into this test. All modern securities law is built on it.

Ripple and XRP

But this isn’t what the SEC has been arguing for two years in the biggest unregistered securities enforcement action to date against a crypto company. The suit was filed against US software company Ripple Labs, which sells a digital payment solution for banks, and includes cryptocurrency XRP as a bridge asset to settle cross-border payments in seconds for almost no cost.

Since 2013, the company has also sold billions of XRP tokens it holds to various crypto exchanges who resold them on the secondary markets to millions of retail holders.

Over the last decade, the XRP ledger grew as a decentralized permissionless distributed ledger with a variety of uses by other companies and individuals. The XRP token eventually rose to having the third-highest market cap for any cryptocurrency in the world.

I am an XRP holder and trial lawyer, so I read the SEC’s complaint as soon as I heard about it. I expected to see the SEC pointing to a scheme of specific early sales by Ripple of XRP, which met the Howey test. That would’ve made sense. But I was shocked to read that the SEC was arguing that all sales of XRP have always been and would always be securities, because “the very nature” of the digital asset is to be a security and nothing else. The token itself is “the embodiment” of an investment contract in Ripple, they argue, even on the secondary markets with no involvement of the company, including mine.

This goes beyond anything the 1933 Securities Act and over 250 federal appellate and Supreme Court decisions about securities law ever imagined. The SEC’s argument is the equivalent of the oranges in Howey being “the embodiment” of the scheme to sell the groves. If that’s the case, how does a corner grocer register an orange with the SEC?

All US exchanges immediately suspended XRP trading in fear of SEC reprisal, locking up the tokens of innocent retail holders as the value plummeted by $15 billion. The collateral damage done to these holders that the SEC claimed to be defending was staggering.

I organized a class of over 75,000 retail XRP holders and gained amicus curiae status in the case. Our reasons are pretty logical. The vast majority attest they’d never heard of Ripple Labs when they acquired the token for their own purposes.

These lines of computer code they obtained can’t be an investment contract or a common enterprise with a company they’d never heard of, and nothing in the law—before or after Howey—supports that idea.

Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York is taking her time with a ruling in the Ripple case because she must understand the stakes, particularly on appeal. The questions to be decided go to the foundations of modern securities law, and what assets can and can’t be included in it. Torres also knows the current US Supreme Court has been knocking down regulators that overreach the powers Congress specifically granted them.

Similar Suits Follow

Other crypto companies from Coinbase to LBRY started facing similar SEC lawsuits. Gensler’s public statements on crypto grew sharper. The larger objectives became clear. He inherited the Ripple case from his predecessor, but he’s made its legal theory the centerpiece of an expansion of regulatory power in court, not through rulemaking or legislation. That has drawn Congress’ ire.

I’m all for clear rules and regulations to protect people. But the SEC is exploiting legal uncertainty about crypto to radically redefine what constitutes an investment contract and a common enterprise in the US. The legal and economic consequences could be enormous and that will only harm people.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

John Deaton is an American attorney acting as amicus counsel for retail digital asset holders in a number of high-profile federal SEC enforcement cases on crypto, most notably SEC v. Ripple (SDNY) and SEC v. LBRY (DNH).

Reproduced with permission. Published May 2, 2023. Copyright 2023 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/  

SEC Crypto Litigation Ventures Into Dangerous Legal Territory

By John Deaton. May 2, 2023. (Bloomberg Law).

US attorney John Deaton analyzes the impact of SEC v. Ripple and SEC v. LBRY on the agency’s enforcement around digital assets, where it pushes the boundaries of U.S. v. Howey, and how it redefines investment contracts and common enterprises.

The US Supreme Court issued the landmark SEC V. Howey decision in 1946, laying out a specific definition of what constitutes a security. Those justices couldn’t have guessed how complex digital commerce over encrypted lines of computer code would fit in almost a century later.

The Securities and Exchange Commission under Chairman Gary Gensler has its own idea of how cryptocurrencies should be regulated today, but bears little resemblance to that decision—and it’s straying into dangerous legal territory in court.

The Howey case involved orange groves sold by a Florida resort to tourists in a scheme where the investors earned passive income from the resort’s management and commercialization of the oranges. The so-called Howey test says a transaction is a security if it is an investment of money, in a common enterprise, with a reasonable expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others. All three prongs of the test must be met.

Hundreds of federal cases that followed found unregistered securities in the packaging and sales of whiskeycondos, chinchillas, oil and gas, and beavers. A scheme to sell any asset, including cryptocurrencies, could easily fit into this test. All modern securities law is built on it.

Ripple and XRP

But this isn’t what the SEC has been arguing for two years in the biggest unregistered securities enforcement action to date against a crypto company. The suit was filed against US software company Ripple Labs, which sells a digital payment solution for banks, and includes cryptocurrency XRP as a bridge asset to settle cross-border payments in seconds for almost no cost.

Since 2013, the company has also sold billions of XRP tokens it holds to various crypto exchanges who resold them on the secondary markets to millions of retail holders.

Over the last decade, the XRP ledger grew as a decentralized permissionless distributed ledger with a variety of uses by other companies and individuals. The XRP token eventually rose to having the third-highest market cap for any cryptocurrency in the world.

I am an XRP holder and trial lawyer, so I read the SEC’s complaint as soon as I heard about it. I expected to see the SEC pointing to a scheme of specific early sales by Ripple of XRP, which met the Howey test. That would’ve made sense. But I was shocked to read that the SEC was arguing that all sales of XRP have always been and would always be securities, because “the very nature” of the digital asset is to be a security and nothing else. The token itself is “the embodiment” of an investment contract in Ripple, they argue, even on the secondary markets with no involvement of the company, including mine.

This goes beyond anything the 1933 Securities Act and over 250 federal appellate and Supreme Court decisions about securities law ever imagined. The SEC’s argument is the equivalent of the oranges in Howey being “the embodiment” of the scheme to sell the groves. If that’s the case, how does a corner grocer register an orange with the SEC?

All US exchanges immediately suspended XRP trading in fear of SEC reprisal, locking up the tokens of innocent retail holders as the value plummeted by $15 billion. The collateral damage done to these holders that the SEC claimed to be defending was staggering.

I organized a class of over 75,000 retail XRP holders and gained amicus curiae status in the case. Our reasons are pretty logical. The vast majority attest they’d never heard of Ripple Labs when they acquired the token for their own purposes.

These lines of computer code they obtained can’t be an investment contract or a common enterprise with a company they’d never heard of, and nothing in the law—before or after Howey—supports that idea.

Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York is taking her time with a ruling in the Ripple case because she must understand the stakes, particularly on appeal. The questions to be decided go to the foundations of modern securities law, and what assets can and can’t be included in it. Torres also knows the current US Supreme Court has been knocking down regulators that overreach the powers Congress specifically granted them.

Similar Suits Follow

Other crypto companies from Coinbase to LBRY started facing similar SEC lawsuits. Gensler’s public statements on crypto grew sharper. The larger objectives became clear. He inherited the Ripple case from his predecessor, but he’s made its legal theory the centerpiece of an expansion of regulatory power in court, not through rulemaking or legislation. That has drawn Congress’ ire.

I’m all for clear rules and regulations to protect people. But the SEC is exploiting legal uncertainty about crypto to radically redefine what constitutes an investment contract and a common enterprise in the US. The legal and economic consequences could be enormous and that will only harm people.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

John Deaton is an American attorney acting as amicus counsel for retail digital asset holders in a number of high-profile federal SEC enforcement cases on crypto, most notably SEC v. Ripple (SDNY) and SEC v. LBRY (DNH).

Reproduced with permission. Published May 2, 2023. Copyright 2023 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/  

SEC Treating Ripple Like a Ponzi Schemer, Not Shaper of Future

By JW Verret. October 27, 2022. (Real Clear Markets).

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) case against Ripple, the largest case it has brought against a defendant working in the crypto industry to date, has been heating up this month with a series of summary motions and some big discovery losses for the SEC. The SEC alleges in that case that one test for a security required to register with the SEC, contained in the 1946 Supreme Court case SEC v Howey, applies to the XRP token that is used by Ripple.

The SEC should admit the secret it isn’t saying out loud to the court and everyone watching the case. The test used in SEC v. Howey is typically used by the SEC to sue hucksters, Ponzi schemers and other con men who sell fake securities. The Howey test is a way to stop them, not a means to facilitate registration with the SEC.

Read the full article here.

An Open Letter to the Members of the House Financial Services Committee and of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

By John E. Deaton.

I write to you on this public platform hoping you will truly understand the damage being inflicted on innocent holders of XRP. I represent 68,700 of those holders.

We are users, developers, small businesses, content providers and investors in the digital asset XRP. In 2015, XRP became the first regulated cryptocurrency in the United States, when the Department of Justice Civil Division and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) settled with Ripple, declaring XRP a “convertible virtual currency.”

After FinCEN declared XRP a virtual currency, forcing sales to comply with U.S. banking laws (not securities laws), foreign governments, including the U.K, Japan, Switzerland, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, followed suit – all declaring XRP a non-security.

On December 22, 2020, five years after FinCEN classified XRP a virtual currency and seven and a half years after XRP had been publicly traded in the U.S., on SEC Chairman Jay Clayton’s last day, the SEC filed suit against Ripple alleging XRP to be an investment contract (aka a security) with Ripple.

As you all know, any commodity, asset or product can be packaged, marketed, and schemed into an offer and sale of an unregistered security. In fact, some of the different assets or products that have been packaged or schemed into an offer and sale of an unregistered security are:

  • Orange groves;
  • Whiskey;
  • Beavers;
  • Chinchillas;
  • Oil and gas;
  • Condos; and
  • Bitcoin;

to name a few.

The Supreme Court has never found the underlying asset, itself, to be the security. Whiskey is still whiskey, and beavers are still beavers.

In the Howey decision, the Court didn’t find the oranges to be securities, but found the scheme behind the offer and sale of the orange groves to be the security. Usually, the SEC argues a specific transfer at a specific time, by Ripple or its executives, would have constituted the sale of an unregistered security.

But in SEC v. Ripple, the SEC is alleging XRP itself is a security. The SEC claims all sales of XRP are illegal. Period. It is the most reckless and dangerous argument the SEC could make. Because of this unprecedented argument, over 68,000 XRP holders decided to fight back.

I’ve been granted amici curiae status for the benefit of XRP holders. The SEC, however, isn’t too happy about it. They attacked me personally and continue to take shots at the very people they claim they are protecting while prosecuting this case espousing an outrageous theory.

Although it laments amici’s presence in this case, the SEC has only itself to blame for amici’s involvement. In short, if the SEC had clarified its theory regarding XRP, it would’ve prevented amici’s involvement entirely and could have pursued Ripple without involving us. Nine days after the SEC filed the excessively broad complaint, in the interests of present-day XRP holders, I petitioned for a Writ of Mandamus requesting the SEC “amend its complaint against Ripple to exclude present-day XRP, purchased by investors with no connection to Ripple.”

The SEC’s sweeping allegations regarding XRP have been at issue since the filing of this case. In the Complaint and during the litigation of this case, the SEC has repeatedly used conclusory language and allegations suggesting XRP itself – is ALWAYS a security.

At its core, the Writ challenged the SEC’s good faith basis alleging that XRP is a security per se.

Within the Complaint:

  • Paragraph 1 labels XRP “a digital asset security”;
  • Paragraph 265 says “Because XRP is fungible”;
  • Paragraph 267 says “The nature of XRP itself”;
  • Paragraph 327 says “The very nature of XRP”; etc.

In fact during the very first hearing, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn confronted the SEC and challenged the implausible theory that “every individual in the world who is selling XRP [is] committing a Section 5 violation.”

The SEC’s response to the judge’s comment says everything. The SEC didn’t dispute the premise of the Judge’s question. The SEC instead claimed that XRP transactions by the rest of the world would likely be exempt under Section 4. (An exchange or any issuer would NOT be exempt.)

The SEC’s response was disingenuous at best and downright misleading at worst. Section 4 exemptions ONLY apply to a security subject to registration under Section 5. In sum, the SEC confirmed that regardless of the seller or circumstances of the sale – XRP is a security per se.

Why is this so dangerous and why has SEC Chairman Gary Gensler allowed it to be argued? Because if this premise is accepted by the Court, it would empower the SEC to regulate a vast number of parties not included in this case, including digital asset exchanges, vendors, and retail holders.

The SEC’s overreach threatens the interests of not only XRP holders, but the exchanges and businesses utilizing XRP and it implicates all other crypto assets. The ability for retail holders and small businesses to transact in XRP (and other crypto) could be greatly impaired.

The majority of XRP holders were unaware of a company called Ripple when they first acquired XRP. Tens of thousands of XRP holders acquired it for non-investment purposes. Many acquired the minimum amount to establish a trust line with the XRP Ledger in order to send money home. Many acquired it as a form of payment. Content providers like Time magazine accept XRP as a form of payment. Thus, Time isn’t an investor and Howey doesn’t apply. XRP is used as payroll currency. All of these non-investment uses get swept into the SEC’s overly broad theory.

XRP holders never imagined being implicated in an enforcement action against Ripple and its two executives. We take no position whether Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse or Chris Larsen violated Section 5 of the Securities Act when they offered and sold XRP during 2013 or yesterday. The SEC could have completely avoided amici’s involvement by simply stipulating secondary market sales of XRP, independent of Ripple, are not securities. It should’ve been an easy stipulation considering it would be consistent with SEC guidance and 76 years of legal precedent.

Had the SEC so stipulated, amici’s involvement in this case would have ended before it began. In fact, even Ripple was clear in communicating its position that amici’s interest would be minimal, if the SEC clarified it was not attempting to establish XRP as a security per se.

Similarly, in responding to the Mandamus Writ, the SEC could have confirmed its suit is not intended to affect the secondary retail market for XRP in the United States. But the SEC refused to make such a concession. The SEC’s enforcement lawyers won’t give up this outrageous claim.

The SEC’s sweeping and illegitimate theory is: “The XRP traded, even in the secondary market, is the embodiment of those facts, circumstances, promises, and expectations and today represents that investment contract.” This is from page 24 of SEC’s opposition to my motion to intervene, where the SEC attempts to split proverbial legal hairs by conceding XRP is not a security per se (“this case presents no such question”), while simultaneously arguing all XRP, including XRP traded in today’s “secondary market … represents” a security.

Remarkably, the SEC claims it is not arguing XRP is a security per se, but instead, arguing XRP is a representation of a security.

What does that even mean?

When does an asset transform from being an asset (whiskey, an orange, a beaver or a bitcoin) to also “representing” an investment contract?

The SEC must prove XRP is an investment contract. But the SEC unilaterally changed its burden to proving only a “representation” of an investment contract. The SEC doesn’t get to make up the law in order to satisfy a political desire to regulate a new evolving asset class.

The SEC’s theory regarding XRP is the functional equivalent of arguing the oranges in Howey were not only oranges but also “represented” the embodiment of the investment contract with the W.J. Howey Company. The SEC’s argument is tantamount to legal gobbledygook.

Current SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce seems to agree. The SEC’s precarious expansion of Howey, as applied to XRP, is so intellectually dishonest that Commissioner Peirce publicly criticized the SEC’s theory when she stated: “What we’ve done now is said the orange groves are kind of like the security.”

Personally, I believe the SEC lawyers have crossed an ethical line and lack the good faith required to make such an absurd argument. Their theory is certainly not supported by caselaw because a glaring omission from the SEC’s brief is a single cite supporting its outlandish theory. The SEC cites no legal authority whatsoever supporting the radical departure from needing to prove an actual investment contract to proving a representation of an investment contract (whatever the heck that means).

But what makes the SEC’s argument in the XRP case even more egregious is that it completely contradicts statements made by the SEC itself. The SEC’s farfetched XRP theory is a direct contradiction of public guidance provided by the SEC itself. In fact, as stated, according to the SEC (and 76 years of case law) any asset or commodity can be utilized as a security whether that asset is an orange, whiskey, a beaver or even a bitcoin.

Until the filing of this case, the SEC had never made a material distinction between bitcoin, ether or XRP. The SEC as a regulator made very clear that: “Whether a cryptocurrency is considered a security will depend on the characteristics and use of the cryptocurrency.” The emails from the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy consistently provided the same exact guidance regardless of whether it was discussing bitcoin, ether or XRP. The SEC’s theory regarding XRP also contravenes proclamations made from the most senior officials at the SEC.

Read the 2018 speech by then-SEC Director of Corporation Finance William Hinman, where he says: “The token – or coin or whatever the digital information packet is called – all by itself is not a security, just as the orange groves in Howey were not.” Hinman noted that when dealing with digital assets like bitcoin, ether and XRP: “The digital asset itself is simply code.” Hinman also emphasized “that the analysis of whether something is a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument.”

Then SEC-Chairman Clayton agreed when he wrote to Congressman Ted Budd (R-NC): “I agree [with Director Hinman] that the analysis of whether a digital asset is offered or sold as a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument.”

“A digital asset may be offered and sold initially as a security because it meets the definition of an investment contract, but that designation may change over time if the digital asset later is offered and sold in such a way that it will no longer meet that definition,” Clayton wrote.

The SEC’s XRP theory clearly contradicts the SEC’s public statements. Relevant caselaw offers the SEC zero support. In SEC v. Shavers, bitcoin was utilized in a scheme that the federal Eastern District Court of Texas found constituted an illegal securities offering. Bitcoin itself was not considered the security.

In addition, we have the Telegram decision explicitly holding, as Hinman stated, that the token itself is never the security: “The security in this case is not simply the Gram, which is little more than alphanumeric cryptographic sequence.” Telegram was an ICO and, unlike this case, involved contracts signed by the Gram purchasers. Thus, if there ever existed a case where the token itself constituted the security, it would be Telegram. Yet, Judge Castel held that ““the ‘security’ was neither the Gram Purchase Agreement nor the Gram but the entire scheme that comprised the Gram Purchase Agreements and the accompanying understandings and undertakings made by Telegram.”

The only conceivable way to attempt to prove the extraordinary claim that XRP itself represents a security is to prove secondary market sales, independent of Ripple, were acquired by investors who entered into a common enterprise w/ Ripple, and all other XRP holders, based on the promises and inducements offered by Ripple, which caused those secondary market acquirers to expect profits from Ripple’s efforts. Yet, as stated, the majority of XRP holders were completely unaware of the company Ripple when they first acquired XRP.

Thousands of XRP holders acquired XRP for non-investment reasons. There are several XRP debit cards that allow you to use XRP as a substitute for fiat currency. Some XRP holders get paid in XRP. These use cases don’t even satisfy the first prong of Howey (an investment).

Tens of thousands of XRP holders stake their XRP for interest or collateralize their XRP to secure a fiat loan – thus obtaining a financial benefit completely independent of Ripple (this fails the common enterprise factor as well as relying on the efforts of Ripple factor).

While the skilled lawyers from both sides strategize their next move in order to gain a competitive litigation advantage, innocent users, developers, investors and holders of XRP, with no connection to these Defendants, fretfully await the outcome.

Will you do anything about it?

We Need A Ripple Test To Stop The SEC’s Overreach On Cryptocurrency

By Roslyn Layton. May 18, 2021. (Forbes).

The regulatory future of cryptocurrency seems destined to be decided by the courts, thanks to an ill-conceived lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. If Ripple’s arguments prevail in the Southern District of New York and on appeal, this case could give the Supreme Court a chance to review the 1946 Howey decision which set a standard for what constitutes a security. 

Courtroom Showdown

I’ve covered the SEC’s case against Ripple Labs case since it was filed by the SEC in December 2020 because it had all the hallmarks of classic enforcement overreach. Ripple and cryptocurrency investors have fought back with robust arguments while the SEC has stumbled and exposed its former leaders’ troubling conflicts of interest. It looks like something bigger than a mere lawsuit. The historical moment adds urgency to resolving whether XRP is a currency or security, a question which financial innovation makes difficult, but also demonstrates the SEC’s abuse of its authority.

The total market cap of all cryptocurrencies, including the XRP digital token at the heart of the Ripple case, tops $2 trillion dollars. The sum of these digital assets is now worth more than the total number of U.S. dollars in circulation. Global companies like Goldman Sachs and PayPal are racing to adopt the technology for consumer products. But more ominously, China has already rolled out a central bank digital currency (CBDC) called the Digital Yuan for domestic commercial and consumer use on a big scale. Mastercard has opened talks to act as a financial bridge for China to expand the Digital Yuan’s global network, export its applications and compete against both cryptocurrencies as the U.S. dollar in the emerging digital economy.

Read the Full Article Here.

SEC’s View That Crypto Tokens Are Securities Causes Legal Woes for Ripple

By Ciaran Connelly – Feb. 11, 2021 – Bloomberg Law

The SEC’s enforcement action against Ripple and its principals illustrates the factors used to determine if a digital asset is a security. Blockchain companies should tread carefully until the U.S. regulatory landscape for crypto tokens is reformed, warns Ciaran Connelly, a partner and head of blockchain law at Ball Janik LLP.

Over the past month, Ripple Labs Inc. has been beset by legal difficulties stemming from its sale of XRP—a digital asset or crypto token. In late December, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action alleging that XRP is a security and that Ripple and its principals had sold nearly $1.4 billion worth of XRP in unregistered securities sales since 2013.

Read the Full Story Here

Since Chairman Patrick McHenry threatened to SUBPOENA Gary Gensler for NON-COMPLIANCE with Congressional oversight.

ACT NOW!