BryanJ / Bryan J is on Nostr

Lawyer, Bitcoiner. Not necessarily in that order

Last Notes

2024-03-06 13:03:18 UTC

- reply

How is that we’ve been meming price target of $69,420 ATH for four years and it actually hits $69,240?
That is hilarious 😂 https://image.nostr.build/0a09f5ac4c664b993153a30bf1ba51cf4847c96e135904a80032d23591d0f8d1.jpg

2023-08-01 17:04:11 UTC

Some folks keep talking about how groundbreaking it is that judges in some of the SEC cases are saying crypto tokens aren’t securities “standing alone.” In my view, that’s a total nothingburger.
Here’s why 👇🏻
The SEC’s theory against the altcoins they’ve pursued has been, since 2017, that they constituted “investment contracts,” which the SEC has jurisdiction over thanks to several statutes passed by Congress, including this one: 15 USC § 77b)
An “investment contract” is defined by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court in Howey). You probably know the now familiar 4-part test. But the preamble to that test is just as important. Before getting to the 4 factors, Howey also notes that “an investment contract” is first and foremost a “contract, transaction, or scheme…”
Each of these categories implies some sort of volition on the part of the issuer and an investor.
Thus, it would seem that no instrument, when considered in isolation, satisfies the definition of an “investment contract” standing alone. And the mere creation of a token (be it XRP, Luna, or any other), without more, is OF COURSE not an unregistered securities “offering.” It must first be offered and accepted by an investor to bring the transaction within the ambit of SEC authority. And it is the manner of that offering coupled with the surrounding facts and circumstances that turns any asset into a security under the investment contract theory that the SEC has put forth.
So if someone tells you how HUGE a deal it is that Judge Torres or some other judge said that XRP or any other token is “not a security” by itself, just know that they’re overplaying their hand.
Indeed, courts have been saying this since early 2020. Take the Telegram Blockchain case:
“[T]he security in this case is not simply the Gram [token], which is little more than alphanumeric cryptographic sequence… the Court finds that the appropriate point at which to evaluate this scheme to sell and distribute Grams is at the point at which the scheme's participants had a meeting of the minds, i.e. at the time of the 2018 Sales…” SEC v. Telegram Grp. Inc., 448 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
See? Nothingburger
(Zap and/or share if you found this useful!)

2023-07-25 14:28:08 UTC

- reply

Not that I’m aware of because it appears they are attempting to restrict sales in the US. Which makes it sort of an (almost)WorldCoin for now 😂

2023-07-24 20:49:53 UTC

Is Sam Altman's Worldcoin an unregistered securities offering in the United States? Probably.
Why?
1) I think it clearly satisfies the Howey test for an investment contract.
a) Investment of money ✅(yes, providing biometric data as a means for paying for an investment counts).
b) common enterprise ✅✅ (hello, Worldcoin, Inc.)
c) investor led to expect profits ✅ (obviously, why else would one part with their personal biometric data)?
d) from the efforts of others ✅(again, obviously. Who is putting those orbs in all those cities around the world?)
2) It is not saved by any purported consumptive use or "utility" even if at some point such utility is established -- growing caselaw (including recent XRP decision) reveals that utility simply doesn't magically unmake a securities offering. (See, e.g. last years LBRY case)
3) It's pretty significant that Worldcoin kept for itself a significant allocation of the token for itself. Judge's have traditionally found this problematic in securities cases (I wonder if leadership had to give up their eyeballs?)
The timing of launching it in the immediate aftermath of the partial victory for Ripple in the XRP decision is curious. But even under that decision's logic (which I don't think ultimately holds up), Worldcoin seems like a prime candidate for the SEC to target.
Just another reason why I love Bitcoin. It’s anti-fragile due to its inherent properties, yes. But it was also designed and distributed in a methodical way to avoid legal scrutiny for as long as possible—until it has grown to something they simply cannot stop.
Worldcoin will go the way of Libra

2023-07-24 16:12:15 UTC

SEC to Appeal XRP Decision
A recent filing in an action the SEC brought against Do Kwon following the infamous Terra Luna collapse offers a glimpse into the agency's litigation strategy for XRP.
And the appeal looks like it could be strong.
The SEC told the Do Kwon court it “should not follow” Judge Torres’ decision in SEC v. Ripple. This is perfectly plausible because district court decisions, while important, are NOT binding on other courts.
The best argument I saw in the filing was that Judge Torres inappropriately **added** requirements to the Howey test including requiring a “direct sale” of the token, a sale that included individual promises to buyers, and that those buyers knew their money was going directly to fund Ripple.
These are NOT part of the Howey test, but for some reason Judge Torres incorporated them anyway. And this is where the SEC stands the best chance to prevail on appeal.
Not only is the “direct sale” distinction one that historically never mattered, but it also turns the Securities Act and the purpose of the SEC on its head. Recall, these statutes were passed in the 1930s in response to retail (and the whole world) getting rugged by supposedly sophisticated institutional investors.
But what does Judge Torres do? She gives the protection (to the extent you view the SEC that way) not to retail but to institutional investors! That makes very little sense and the SEC has now signaled it will take this development up on appeal in the 2nd Circuit.
Will keep updating legal developments here in Bitcoin and occasionally the broader crypto space as they happen.
Share this and/or send a Zap if you found this post interesting!

2023-05-07 19:48:29 UTC

Gonna zap some sats to a few people who want ‘em to see whether LN fixes this so called network congestion on Bitcoin. Raise your hand if you’d like a few sats

2023-05-05 17:14:48 UTC

⬇️ In case you don’t know how this ends (Alternate Ending) ⬇️ https://nostr.build/i/nostr.build_f542dab20f563299c3a6a56716efebaa64be41a9ea8684c8bd94061bfecabac9.jpg

2023-05-01 21:58:18 UTC

We Bitcoiners love the Matrix. Probably because the revolutionary act of trading fiat or labor for Bitcoin feels like (and is often compared to) “taking the red pill.” In other words, being “unplugged.” But consider this:
In first Matrix movie, being unplugged was a revolutionary act. It meant one could get out of a ubiquitous system of control, and be truly free from the shackles of that system. It was of, course dangerous, but at least for most the danger was worth it to “be free.”
It’s not until the second movie when we realize the revolution is just another tightly supervised system of control. In fact, what being “unplugged” did was give the system the ability to identify that small (but escalating) minority of people who would reject it. And rather than allow that minority to grow within the system and eventually destroy it, they just let them leave.
Yeah, machines fought them on the outside and on the inside, but it was all part of the plan. And the function of “the one” was not to set people free. But to rebuild once the planned destruction of the city the housed the “revolutionaries” was destroyed again and again.
It’s interesting to think about in the context of Bitcoin. Because I think we all feel like we’re being unplugged and opting out of the system. But what if the system is merely creating a honeypot of the financial assets of all those who might reject it, so that when the time comes, they can send it to zero (thus neutralizing/hobbling the biggest “problems” of their planned future society).
Not saying it is what will happen (or even suggesting that it can). But it’s kind of crazy how we all love the Matrix, and we all feel in some way like buying Bitcoin is “getting out,” but we forget what “getting out” meant in the Matrix.
Thoughts? (And no I didn’t watch the fourth one because everyone said it was horrible)

2023-05-01 21:23:33 UTC

How do you lost pictures to Nostr?

2023-04-26 15:29:00 UTC

- reply

To prove the wisdom of your strategy, I just sent you 500 sats ($0.15) from the other side of the world instantly and for no fee.

2023-03-06 19:24:55 UTC

- reply

Hilarious. Zapped!

2023-03-05 21:26:14 UTC

Testing
lnbc870n1pjq2z88pp5vxnfdcn52pmu9mzylja7enc4lvn2gec6htxkx6wtztuj0sv06g9qdqu2askcmr9wssx7e3q2dshgmmndp5scqzpgxqyz5vqsp5fg9e4ta5fhvyfdc89w3hntt832e2tkxy5zqk79z3gcz2z6uvzklq9qyyssqn6z40sax904f8rsn9r9tfnamz08j30wdcaxqcdfn2sj77x76zw34hr7xnfzrf3j3g000xq3df969mf6ta6ut4apjcsvwwch8mkmj9ugpvsu504

2023-02-21 19:28:00 UTC

- reply

Awesome thank you! Made it 200 sats for the helpfulness of the response

2023-02-21 19:21:21 UTC

Thanks to whoever sent me 44 sats! 🤙🏼🤙🏼