Former SEC Member: XRP is a Currency, Not a Security
A former employee of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, also known as SEC, spoken about the XRP and stated it’s a currency rather than a security. Michael Didiuk, who worked for SEC before retired, also explained the motives behind his words.
Didiuk mentioned a test laid out by Supreme Court back in 1946 to determine what makes an asset a security or a currency. Didiuk said an asset must have to pass these four factors to classified as a security. According to him, these four factors investment of money, a common enterprise, the expectation of profits, and the efforts of a third party or promoter pushing that profit. In his words:
“I don’t think XRP is a security, I think XRP is a currency. The reason why is […] Howey test… It’s a 4-factor test – Investment of money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits based on the efforts of others.”
Didiuk stated if an asset lacks one of these factors, then it is not a security. Didiuk also said XRP is a currency and have nothing in common with the company of Ripple hence, it’ll operate without the help of Ripple company. Because of that, Didiuk said he thinks XRP is well and truly, a currency.
A popular member across the cryptocurrency space, Steven Diep,also shared his opinions about Didiuk’s comments. Diep stated:
“Pay attention to the reaction of the regulators, they laugh. Claiming XRP being a security sounds stupid from the get go”
Didiuk comments also seem to found support across the social media websites like Twitter and Reddit. One Twitter user and crypto follower said:
“Smells good for the SEC verdict, dont you think so ?”
Earlier this week, former U.S president Bill Clinton has spoken at Ripple’s Swell conference. Many argued that Clinton hasn’t said anything ‘worthy’ but his involvement is still vital for Ripple to show their extended size of network. Clinton said, in that meeting:
“The more you develop new technologies like blockchain … AI technologies, robotic technologies … the more the disparity of access is going to be felt. You can’t apply old regulatory regime into a new technology. That is not going to work. If you do that, you end up killing the goose that laid golden egg. This whole blockchain deal has the potential it does only because it is applicable across national borders, income groups.The permutations and possibilities are staggeringly great. But we could ruin it all by negative identity politics and economic and social policy.”