XRP WAS held to be an illegally issued security. And hence Ripple and its various executives are now facing huge fines and possible criminal sentences. What was not help to be a criminal breach of securities laws, was for individuals to trade those illegally issued shares among themselves. Read the judgement - its quite clearly written and explained (and also still very unclear whether an exchange is permitted to facilitate the trade of such illegally issued securities). It is for this reason, obviously, that you have not seen any XRP ETF approved (which you would think would be the case, following your logic).
Not sure what is meant by the Fink quote, but it is clear that ETH as a technology will continue despite ETH being ruled a security and despite there being no Eth ETF. Maybe that is what he meant?
This is incorrect. XRP was determined to not be a security. Go read up on the case. Why are you posting this? My question again is if the SEC could not prove that XRP was a security, how will they do so with ETH?
https://www.investopedia.com/what-does-the-xrp-not-a-security-ruling-mean-for-other-cryptocurrencies-7561320#:~:text=KEY%20TAKEAWAYS,crypto%20waged%20by%20the%20SEC.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A Thursday court ruling in Ripple's case with the SEC indicated that the digital asset XRP is not a security.The crypto industry has responded positively to the news, with crypto exchanges relisting XRP and many hoping this will lead to an end to the perceived war on crypto waged by the SEC.
The ruling will undoubtedly have an impact on the SEC's cases against Binance and Coinbase, and the fact that many U.S.-based exchanges have decided to relist XRP is seen as positive development for Binance and Coinbase's legal standing.
While there is reason for crypto enthusiasts to rejoice over the short term, the reality is the Ripple ruling may not be the end-all-be-all method by which crypto assets are classified.
https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2023/07/28/https-insightplus-bakermckenzie-com-bm-data-technology-united-states-finally-a-court-decides-xrp-by-itself-is-not-a-security-your-turn-congress_07252023/Orange groves are not securities and neither is XRP: Back to Howey basicsWhile the Ripple decision contains other important holdings, for the sake of Howey and the crypto industry, perhaps no holding was as important as returning to the basics: that is, the purpose of the Howey test and the distinction between an investment contract and its subject asset. In assessing the XRP token, Judge Torres recognized that any asset can be the subject of an investment contract, but selling any asset (including a digital asset) via an investment contract does not automatically make that subject asset into a security. Rather, whether the sale and distribution of XRP, orange groves, or any other asset (a non-security) constitutes an investment contract (a security) depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding each contract, transaction, or scheme through which the asset is sold and distributed (i.e., a transaction-by-transaction analysis).
When looking at XRP, Judge Torres was unequivocal in holding that XRP, the digital asset by itself, is not “a ‘contract, transaction, or scheme’ that embodies the Howey requirements of an investment contract,” and thus it is not a security. In that sense, XRP, the digital asset, is no different than the orange groves in Howey. In Howey, investors purchased ownership interests in parcels of orange groves coupled with a service agreement for another person to cultivate, harvest and market the crops and remit the net proceeds to the passive investors. It was the entirety of that arrangement that constituted the investment contract in Howey, not the orange groves themselves.
Re-establishing the basic Howey analysis framework may be the most important outcome of the Order, and arguably one less likely to be overturned on appeal. Moreover, the Securities Clarity Act and the recently introduced Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21st Century Act would further reinforce the distinction between the investment contract and the underlying asset. Indeed, the connection was immediately highlighted by Rep. Emmers in reaction to the Order.
