I believe that a recent comment, although older, is directly related to Brad Garlinghouse’s statements at various public meetings and interviews earlier this year. He mentioned that in his opinion, once the SEC and CFTC finalize their regulatory clarity for crypto within the U.S., almost 90% of the coins and tokens currently on the market will disappear, leaving only a few to remain for the long term within the crypto space.
I am inclined to agree with the person within the above video, as well as Brad Garlinghouse. I’ve expressed this before, and I’ll state it again now: I believed then and still believe now that the SEC lawsuit filed against Ripple was a smokescreen to slow down what Ripple was attempting to achieve with the XRPL, ODL, and CBPRs (Cross Border Payment Rails). This, in turn, enabled others to catch up to Ripple’s progress in attempts in reshaping the global financial systems.
☝🏼 This is solely my own humble opinion. ☝🏼
In my opinion, the entire reason for the SEC filing a lawsuit against Ripple and not against Ethereum (ConsenSys), Cardano, or Solana for conducting similar activities—allegedly conducting unregistered securities offerings—is questionable. The SEC alleged that Ripple executives held an initial public offering (IPO) of XRP, which they considered an unregistered security at the time of raising capital. Notably, this is the same thing Ethereum’s founder, Vitalik Buterin, did with an ICO for Ethereum from July 20, 2014, to September 2, 2014.
Ethereum uses a “proof of stake” system, where users stake Ethereum and get paid a reward for staking, as opposed to the “proof of work” system used by Bitcoin, where users are paid in BTC for validating transactions through crypto mining.
☝🏼 Therefore… ☝🏼
Why would the SEC file a lawsuit against Ripple? Jay Clayton filed the lawsuit on his last day as SEC Chairman before returning to Sullivan & Cromwell, the law firm representing ConsenSys. ConsenSys is a for-profit consulting firm that promotes and profits from building enterprise blockchain solutions on the Ethereum network. Clayton filed the lawsuit, and William ‘Bill’ Hinman made a speech, posted on the SEC website, stating that Ethereum is not a security. In January 2024, the SEC began investigating Ethereum and ConsenSys. On April 25, 2024, ConsenSys filed for an injunction to block the SEC from investigating Ethereum. As of June 19, 2024, the SEC has closed its investigation into Ethereum 2.0 and will not take enforcement action against ConsenSys.
Yet, the SEC still claims that XRP is an unregistered security? Ripple’s XRP Ledger and XRP Token enable faster cross-border payments. Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is costly, and transactions often fail. ConsenSys’ Ethereum Network has high gas fees and latency issues during high transaction volumes, sometimes costing $200 to send $100.
Ripple’s XRP Ledger and XRP Token operate far better than any other blockchain within the crypto space, with a nominal transaction fee of 0.000010 XRP. At current prices, to send $1,000,000 on the XRP Ledger, the fee would be $100, with the receiver getting the transfer within 3-5 seconds.
ConsenSys was falling behind Ripple in this blockchain environment. Ethereum made many wealthy through its ICO, and these influential individuals needed Ripple’s XRP Ledger and XRP Token to be suppressed to keep financial institutions from utilizing Ripple’s ODL capabilities.
Why else would the SEC file a lawsuit against Ripple and not also against Ethereum? Why drag the lawsuit out for over three years if not for the fact that those wealthy investors, benefiting from the Ethereum ICO, influenced key personnel in various organizations like the SEC and the U.S. Senate?
The points I raise reflect a broader skepticism and debate within the cryptocurrency community about regulatory practices and market dynamics. I realize that my opinions are my opinions are very blunt in many ways. And the SEC’s actions, the technological advancements of different blockchain projects, and the influence of powerful stakeholders are all critical factors shaping the future of cryptocurrencies.
While it’s challenging to substantiate claims of deliberate suppression without concrete evidence, the discussion underscores the need for transparency and consistency in regulatory approaches to ensure a fair and competitive market. It is also of my opinion, that the U.S. SEC chairman has never been transparent, nor has every had any intentions to actually be transparent.