markgodley

@ChampRDS Why is the handwriting the same in all three?!

🚨 The scorecards for Usyk vs Rico at the time of the stoppage have been released: 95-95 96-94 Rico 95-95 #UsykRico

@crossley044 @Coins_Kid Typical CK state up, down, sideways - can’t be wrong then.

@Coins_Kid Didn’t you call for btc at 156k in September 😭🫠

Exactly this 👊🔮

@BCBacker Release the movie!

XRP - After 7.5 years, welcome to a new All-Time High.

@EleanorTerrett @CGasparino where’s your invite?! Ha dummy!

Who’s going? 👀

@EleanorTerrett Well deserved

@EleanorTerrett @grok what does this mean?

🚨NEW: The Anti-CBDC Act just passed the House in a vote of 219-210 with just 2 Democrats voting in favor. Much more partisan, but that was expected. That concludes the voting on crypto bills!

XRP $3.25 The last boss before price discovery awaits.

@freddyriz @BCBacker @freddyriz appreciate your insight as always. What time frame are we looking for them both dropping the appeals and it being over?

SEC v. Ripple Update: This is a long post on my thoughts here but the TLDR is: "Welcome to the new SEC, for now more or less the same as the last one." And: Ripple and SEC will settle the appeal for the reduced, agreed upon amount and leave the Torres judgment in place, while the SEC will publicly or privately communicate to Ripple that it is not restricted in its business operations with Ripple transparent about those operations and demonstrating how they no longer fall into the category that was deemed illegal by Torres. I thought Judge Torres would grant the first motion, recognizing that the anti-crypto war of the Gensler Era was political animus and that the agency was moving in a different direction under new leadership. There was zero obstacle to her granting the motion and moving on. She chose not to. There are only two reasons for this. One, she was pissed that the parties wasted 4.5 years of her time with bitter litigation. This reason is 100% in play. Two, she is hostile to the Trump administration and will do what she can to throw up obstacles. This reason is 100% in play for some federal judges (it is no matter who is in charge as there are judges that are political rather than objective). I'm not sure if this reason is in play for Torres but now I will be following her other cases to test this hypothesis. Once Torres denied the first motion, and the language she used in so doing, it was clear that the @SECGov (and to a lesser extent, @Ripple) needed to do some begging in the second motion and both utterly failed. Pages 3 and 4 of this ruling parrot back the SEC's own words of how egregious, dangerous, and reckless the SEC believed Ripple to be and why a $1 BILLION fine was necessary. I said that the second motion had to have some actual testimony by SEC Commissioners (meaning affidavits/declarations) to counter this, such as "I, Commissioner Peirce, voted against this ridiculous lawsuit because it was a waste of our enforcement resources and unfair in light of our piss poor guidance to crypto companies." Or: "I, Commissioner Atkins, took over as Chair with a mandate to correct the wrongs of the prior SEC regarding crypto guidelines. A majority of the commissioners determined the SEC enforcement division under the prior administration acted arbitrarily, capriciously and often with bad faith in targeting crypto companies. The most serious example of that, of course, being the Debt Box case where our attorneys were so brazen in their unethical behavior that the SEC was sanctioned in excess of a million dollars and the lawyers were terminated. Our position in the Ripple litigation was misguided and flat our wrong. The court should evaluate all prior pleadings from the context that our enforcement attorneys acted in a partisan manner and not out of faithful allegiance to the law, as Judge Netburn noted herself in this case." This obviously did not happen and there are only two reasons why: (1) Ripple and the SEC did not discuss this necessity. I find it hard to believe this to be the case, as it could arguably be legal malpractice if the attempt was not made. (2) Ripple did ask and the SEC said, "We are not making ourselves look like idiot assholes. This crappy motion on SEC letterhead is the best I can offer ." Because (2) is likely what happened, this tells me that the SEC is going to do what it has done for decades: protect its own regardless of the administration in charge or detriment to the public. If you ever want to know the types of pieces of shit that sit atop the SEC, type into your browser "david aguirre sec whistleblower" and read up (and this happened under W Bush btw). Also, I sue .gov agencies all the time for despicable behavior they commit against my fellow American citizens. They are all like this (and I mean as institutions; there are some good folks fighting upstream but they are vastly outnumbered). This is the reason I am so invested in crypto--to opt out of our crumbling system. Another reason you know the SEC hasn't fundamentally changed (yet at least) on crypto will be revealed on the appeal. SEC claimed it is dropping their appeal but I don't believe that has been formalized. The SEC has the power to formally drop their appeal and simply not respond to Ripple's appellate brief (i.e., leaving it unopposed) thereby giving a huge boost to Ripple winning it. I put that happening at 0%. The parties will drop their appeals, settle at $50M and move on with the injunction in place. Regarding that injunction, it doesn't affect $XRP on the secondary markets nor will it impact XRP ETF approvals. And remember the injunction is just a piece of paper issued by a court. Although technically Torres has the ability to haul Ripple and SEC back into her court and say, "I see Ripple is selling to institutions, tell me why that is not violating my injunction," the odds of this are extremely low. In other words, the injunction only substantively matters if the SEC wants it to matter, meaning, the SEC files a motion to enforce the injunction because it believes Ripple is violating it. Torres in her ruling acknowledged this general principle on page 5. Presumably the "pro-crypto" Commission wouldn't do that. Lastly on the injunction, I have researched it but have yet to find a basis why the answer to this question has to be 'no': Doesn't the SEC have the authority to grant Ripple the exemptions and waivers required to remove any restrictions necessitated by the injunction (such as time restriction on IPO)? From my research this seems to be entirely within the executive authority of the SEC to do. Further, Ripple has already claimed that it has changed its operations such that the behavior it got tagged for by Torres is no more. If you look at the @s_alderoty post on this ruling from today, I noticed for the first time that he used the term "historic institutional sales" to describe the Torres-determined-bad-behavior. Maybe he used it before but I didn't notice it. Anyway, this signals to me that the parties are going to settle and move on with the understanding that XRP sales to institutions will be done in a way the SEC can live with. If you read all of this, I am impressed. Any replies that demonstrate you read the whole thing will bring me joy. At the same time, under The Reply Laws Of X, I hope to see the most appropriate reply in the comments when it comes to ridiculously long posts by a user.

@FilanLaw @grok what does this mean in simple terms?!

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP BREAKING: Judge Torres has denied the parties’ Motion for an Indicative Ruling.

@BCBacker @grok what does this means - simplify

I do believe Wall Street found the loophole in Bitcoin scarcity with Bitcoin Treasuries, and are going to capitalize on it at the expense of Bitcoin long term. Right now, everyone loves it. Give it some time, the dopamine wears off, and they understand it steals Bitcoin capital.

@Coins_Kid @realDonaldTrump Cringe coinskid….

@realDonaldTrump Hey Donald, what is the long-term vision for the official #trump coin that you launched on the #solana blockchain way back on March?

This was so wonderful, 9 years ago today!

@VitalikButerin Great article, but lack of Quantitative Risk Modeling is disappointing.

A simple L2 security and finalization roadmap ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-simple-l2-…

@XRPcryptowolf I gave it 5.89/10 😏

The new Moana 2 movie was good. Rating: 7.3/10 😁

@attorneyjeremy1 I wish you all the best for the future, take care. Thank you for everything you did, and the entertaining, yet informative, videos.

Dear Friends, My time on X has come to an END. I had no idea that when I saw that article about the Ripple lawsuit back on Christmas 2020 (yes, that long ago!), that it was the Christmas gift that would take me to places I never imagined. Thank you for being on this journey with me and for trusting me through it all. I am only proud that I saw it through to the end and did my best to keep you informed (and hopefully a little entertained). Now is the time for me to focus on some other things - maybe some new adventure. If you ever need me, come and find me! I wish all of you the best in life. Find yourself a good woman (if you haven't already) and hold her tight, it's my final advice. :) "Well, here at last, dear friends, on the shores of the Sea comes the end of our fellowship in Middle-earth. Go in peace!" -Gandalf

@CGasparino @SECGov Cry baby much? 😂 🤡

Obviously the question remains about the other part of the case but it’s clear current @SECGov believes $XRP passes the Etherium decentralized test as it’s trading today. Also for the @SECGov: How does I square the duo disclosure standard set by judge Torres

@EleanorTerrett @BCBacker @SECGov @Ripple Your hard work is next level @EleanorTerrett ⬆️

🚨SCOOP: Two well-placed sources tell me that the @SECGov vs. @Ripple case is in the process of wrapping up and could be over soon. My understanding is that the delay in reaching an agreement is due to Ripple's legal team negotiating more favorable terms regarding the August district court ruling, which imposed a $125M fine on the company and included a permanent injunction preventing the company from selling $XRP to institutional investors. The argument, I’m told, is that if the new SEC leadership is wiping the enforcement slate clean for all previously-targeted crypto firms because it believes regulatory clarity will resolve the underlying issue, why should Ripple still be penalized? Accepting the Torres ruling as it stands would mean that Ripple is essentially agreeing to admit to wrongdoing — but now the SEC itself is seemingly unsure whether any wrongdoing occurred. There’s no real playbook for this kind of thing which could explain why this case is taking longer to resolve than the rest. Stay tuned.

@CGasparino @SECGov @Ripple What a bitter old man you really are.

I love this XRP Strategic Reserve story; Trump will have to tell his @SECGov to drop the @Ripple case and allow a lower disclosure standard for retail or face losing a ton of money on much lower $XRP prices in the strategic reserve if they keep the case; can’t wait to keep covering this and there is nothing anyone can do to stop me sad ha!

@ChrisEubankJr Let’s have some parlamentry procedure here.

Eggcellent

@JoelKatz Thought that combination was 589 🤔

It's even more amazing because that's also the combination to my luggage.

Interesting flight number.

@BitcoinPierre @applemi13 @davidsacks47 @EleanorTerrett @BoHines Next joke 🤣

@applemi13 @davidsacks47 @EleanorTerrett @BoHines Those are old 2017 talking point, now there’s lots of bitcoin mining in Texas and bitcoin Lightning payments are instant.

As @EleanorTerrett reports, the inter-agency Working Group on Digital Assets is working well together to implement the President’s agenda. @BoHines is doing a fantastic job as Executive Director keeping everyone coordinated. Some important announcements are coming soon.