Okay, so is XRP a security? Peter L Brandt, "trusted crypto expert" seems to think so, let's weigh in on this issue.
Bring in the legal precedent, something these globalist billionaire's have never heard of, here's the Howey test (SEC v. W.J Howey Co)
1. Specifically, the Howey Test determines that a transaction represents an investment contract if "a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party,"
Okay, when you buy an XRP you are paying 1:1 for current price of the coin with no expectation of it going to any specific price, therefore it's not an investment contract, if the price WERE to pump it would be organic from all the different players in the game purchasing it for the utility.
XRP was never sold in a presale, something ETH did that makes it 100% a security, ETH sold a coin that didn't exist ($0 value) to investors who were expecting some sort of monetary value of their coins.
XRP has never given dividends of network profits to ANYONE, all fees on the network are specifically BURNED, designed that way for compliance.
ETH on the other hand is becoming even more of a SECURITY by paying dividends of network profits to node owners, ETH 2.0 "the security upgrade"
XRP is not an ownership or investment contract in Ripple company.
And CoinTelegraph, Peter Brandt have the gall to post about "XRP should be a security" on their stupid little news website where nothing can be refuted because there's no comments section.
We are supposed to just take whatever these people say like the word of God.
BOTH Peter Brandt and CoinTelegraph have LOST all credibility (that is, if they even had any in the first place)
And honestly Peter making a fool of himself at like 50 years old, it's just an embarrassment.
Bring in the legal precedent, something these globalist billionaire's have never heard of, here's the Howey test (SEC v. W.J Howey Co)
1. Specifically, the Howey Test determines that a transaction represents an investment contract if "a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party,"
Okay, when you buy an XRP you are paying 1:1 for current price of the coin with no expectation of it going to any specific price, therefore it's not an investment contract, if the price WERE to pump it would be organic from all the different players in the game purchasing it for the utility.
XRP was never sold in a presale, something ETH did that makes it 100% a security, ETH sold a coin that didn't exist ($0 value) to investors who were expecting some sort of monetary value of their coins.
XRP has never given dividends of network profits to ANYONE, all fees on the network are specifically BURNED, designed that way for compliance.
ETH on the other hand is becoming even more of a SECURITY by paying dividends of network profits to node owners, ETH 2.0 "the security upgrade"
XRP is not an ownership or investment contract in Ripple company.
And CoinTelegraph, Peter Brandt have the gall to post about "XRP should be a security" on their stupid little news website where nothing can be refuted because there's no comments section.
We are supposed to just take whatever these people say like the word of God.
BOTH Peter Brandt and CoinTelegraph have LOST all credibility (that is, if they even had any in the first place)
And honestly Peter making a fool of himself at like 50 years old, it's just an embarrassment.