Recently, an interesting analysis of the trial was presented on Twitter.
Recently, Twitter provided an interesting analysis of the trial on various points. Was noted:
Early in the Ripple v SEC case, Netburn decided internal memos were relevant. Memos about how the SEC chose to treat BTC, ETH, and XRP, and what factors drove their thinking. Why? Scienter… in part. If SEC didn’t know XRP was a security, neither could Brad & Chris.
But things go deeper than the individual defendants here. I believe Netburn expected the SEC to argue that ETH and XRP differed in fundamental ways. That’s why the docs would be especially relevant. Since of course, they stated ETH was not a security.
But the Hinman affidavit turned the story on its head. Just imagine a judge asking for docs that help the SEC explain why they treated ETH differently, only to get the response “we didn’t.” The argument she assumed would be a key theory of the case, gone.
Netburn knew the assets would have to be compared. In the absence of clear regulation, she believed the Hinman speech would be their guiding light. And then they just… pretended it didn’t happen.
I think it speaks to both the arrogance of the SEC, and their severe shortsightedness in this case. The judge handed them an opportunity to use prior decisionmaking to beef up their flimsy argument, but instead they just replied… no thanks.