Do I have this right? If you buy crypto...
Directly ➡️ It's a security ✅
Indirectly ➡️ It's NOT a security ❌
So that means if a bank buys XRP from Ripple, it's a security. But it's not a security if the bank turns around and anonymizes the XRP sale to retail investors on an exchange. And it's not a security if even if Ripple *itself* sells its token anonymously on an exchange.
How does this make any sense?
We're talking about Judge Analisa Torres' decision in the SEC v Ripple case in federal court.
The critical distinction is whether the sale involves a direct contractual relationship between the seller (Ripple) and the end purchaser. But when you buy stocks on an exchange don't know who is selling that stock, either. And yet stocks are considered securities.
If this decision stands, large institutional investors are protected by the SEC. Retail investors are not. And that's a recipe for another crypto bubble funded by the average Joe's paycheck.
