By Tobi Loba
John E Danton, a lawyer that has been willingly representing the interest of the XRP investors in the court, has recently argued that the co-founder of Ethereum (ETH), Vitalik Buterin offered ETH much more as a security than any specific sale of XRP he’s aware of.
Danton captioned a video of Jay Clayton, the former chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who filed the securities lawsuit against Ripple before his departure in December 2020.
Read Also: Ripple Responds: XRP Investors Lost Over $15 Billion to SEC’s Filing(
In the video initially shared on Twitter by the Digital Asset Investor, Jay Clayton described what could make the SEC term an asset as a security. Danton cited the 500,000 ETH sold to Mike Novogratz of Galaxy Digital by Vitalik Buterin back in 2012 as an example of an unregistered security.
John E Danton tweeted, “What Vitalik Buterin is doing in the below video is much more of an “offering” of a security than any specific sale of XRP that I’m aware of – (although I’m not aware of all XRP sales). The transfer of 500k ETH sold to Mike Novogratz that Vitalik publicly stated SAVED the Ethereum Foundation (common enterprise) is also a clearer example of the sale of an unregistered security than what is alleged in the SEC Enforcement Complaint VS Ripple. Let’s assume XRP JUST LIKE ETH was a security between 2013and 2017. Why the selective enforcement?”
**The Ethereum ICO Free Pass** Continued pic.twitter.com/nXw49VPtct
— Digital Asset Investor 100% Upfront-Everybody Wins (@digitalassetbuy) March 23, 2021
Danton further stated in three successive tweets that “Many have argued that it’s all about the ESCROW! I agree that the escrow is a relevant factor. But the escrow doesn’t turn it into a security. When this case was filed against Ripple, individuals at the SEC knew that it would face problems & hurdles prosecuting this case.
“They also knew XRP Holders would be greatly harmed and that the exchanges would likely delist or suspend. Grundfest warned the mere filing of the Complaint would cause catastrophic economic harm. Was the filing of the Complaint itself, the goal? Was the Complaint the weapon?
Read Also: Cost-Efficiency, Speed, and Scalability Make XRP a Crypto That Deserves SEC’s Fairness
“The relevant question isn’t who will be harmed by the mere filing of the Complaint. The relevant question is who benefited by the mere filing of the Complaint (causing the harm)? It’s not that someone was against XRP per se but favored or promoted BTC and ETH and ?”
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Download Our Android App