RIPPLE’S DUE PROCESS CLAIM:
In @Ripple’s Answer it asserted a defense that the SEC should be barred from claiming #XRP is a security today because it violates Due Process and principles of Fair Notice. Previously, I discussed a similar concept called the doctrine of equitable

estoppel. I explained the law protects a party from being harmed by another party's voluntary conduct. That conduct may be ACTIONS, INACTION, SILENCE, or ACQUIESCENCE. Although the SEC never declared XRP a non-security, for EIGHT YEARS it openly traded in unison with #ETH and

#BTC . During this time, some from the SEC, including Clayton, commented that #BTC and/or #ETH were not securities. For 8 years the SEC’s actions, inaction, silence and acquiescence implied that XRP was also NOT a security. Let’s review a few of the SEC’s actions, inaction,

silence and/or acquiescence related to #XRP. (1) During the period of time the SEC claims XRP was a security, the SEC granted Ripple permission to take a minority stake in MoneyGram (MGI). Ripple invested $50 million purchasing approximately 9% of MGI. The SEC approved this

purchase of MGI with the full knowledge that Ripple would encourage MGI to use XRP as a cross-border utility token related to remittances. The SEC allowed the use of this so-called illegal security to be utilized not just by Ripple, but by MGI. The SEC admitted to this knowledge

when it stated in the Complaint that Ripple paid “Money Transmitter significant financial compensation – often paid in XRP.” The SEC was fully aware that MGI would not HODL XRP. The SEC knew that MGI would sell XRP in the Secondary Markets to investors such as ALL OF US XRP

HOLDERS. Thus, it appears, the SEC, believing XRP to be an unregistered security, provided consent for XRP to be purchased and/or utilized by MGI and then sold in the secondary markets to innocent investors with no connection to Ripple, or even MGI, because purchasers of XRP on

exchanges do not know the identity he seller. If the SEC truly believed XRP to be an illegal security, why would it allow this transaction to take place? The answer is because the SEC knows very well that Today’s XRP is NOT A SECURITY. (2) XRP has been trading in the Secondary

Markets SINCE 2013! In 2015, the DOJ & FinCen settled a case with Ripple and determined that XRP was VIRTUAL CURRENCY and that Ripple is a MONEY transmitter of XRP. The settlement required Ripple’s XRP transactions comply with LAWS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO SECURITY TRANSACTIONS. This

is an agency of the U.S. Gov’t classifying XRP as virtual currency. (3) Also in 2015, the US Gov’t entered into a consent agreement related to the sale of XRP to @rogerkver. The US Gov’t settled with Ripple and the SEC didn’t allege securities violations, nor did the SEC issue a

cease and desist letter or seek an injunction to stop sales of XRP. These Gov’t interactions and inactions with Ripple, involving XRP, implies that XRP IS NOT considered a security.
(3) In 2017, The SEC brought high-profile ICO cases against several companies, alleging that the

digital token that was being offered constituted an unregistered security. Two of these cases involved the #EOS and #KIN Tokens. These companies raised capital by offering ICOs. These tokens were promised by the promoter who received money for that promise. This ICO scenario fits

squarely in the 4 factor Howey test of what constitutes a security. Because these ICOs constituted securities, the SEC shut it down. Ripple and XRP, however, were LEFT ALONE by the SEC during these high-profile prosecutions. In fact, @bgarlinghouse SPOKE OUT against these ICO

Token assets at the time. In 2017, XRP had been GLOBALLY traded for over FOUR years. The SEC, by leaving Ripple and XRP alone during the aggressive prosecution of ICOs, implicitly gave further confidence to investors AND RIPPLE that the THIRD LARGEST CRYPTO was safe from being

called a security - JUST LIKE #BTC and #ETH. (4) Japan, Singapore, the U.K., Switzerland and the UAE have declared XRP to NOT be a security, while the U.S. has remained SILENT. (5) The SEC runs a node on the XRPL, along with thousands of other individuals, and companies. This

CONDUCT by the SEC implies that the SEC would not be conveying and/or validating transactions worth billions of dollars in illegal securities.
(6) Even if Ripple ceased to operate as a company, the XRPL continues along with XRP as the XRPL is open source and the SEC did not have

to seek approval to run a validator node. (7) Since personnel from the SEC have made public statements that #BTC and #ETH are not securities, and considering, like BTC and ETH, XRP is a digital currency supported by a distributed ledger that uses cryptography to store and

transfer assets; and, SINCE THE SEC WAS SILENT, it was implied that #XRP would be treated the same. (8) The OCC issued a notice that banks could custody crypto. Clayton issued a letter that states the SEC agrees with the OCC in allowing banks to custody crypto. #XRP was the THIRD

LARGEST crypto. Clayton did not state that he agreed with the OCC with the exception that banks CAN'T CUSTODY XRP because they are unregistered securities! He never provided a statement that XRP or other Cryptos could later be determined a security. Instead, it appeared that the

SEC was in full agreement. He certainly didn’t say “we agree but be aware that EIGHT MONTHS LATER on my way out the door, I intend to declare the 3RD largest crypto in the world to be an unregistered security.” No mention of XRP whatsoever. It’s percent reasonable to assume

that if the SEC agrees that U.S. banks can custody crypto, it would include the 3rd largest crypto. The SEC, by this letter of agreement with the OCC, provided investors AND RIPPLE confidence that XRP WOULD
NOT be classified a security or the SEC would have excluded certain

assets or simply limited the custody to #BTC and #ETH. (9)The SEC was well aware that financial services companies, such as @iTrustCapital allowed U.S. residents and investors with absolutely no connection to Ripple transfer their traditional Fiat IRA into crypto assets,

including XRP. (10) During the time period that the SEC claims #XRP was an unregistered security, the SEC was well aware that a third-party entity, @FlareNetworks, unrelated to Ripple, announced, promoted, and then executed a Digital Asset Token Airdrop for all XRP holders. Flare

informed the public that it would be air dropping at least one Spark Token for every XRP token held by investors. If #XRP is a security and we only have #FLR because of #XRP, what does that make #FLR? If your XRP is a security then your FLR must be a security. The SEC said or did

nothing. All this SEC CONDUCT, INACTION, SILENCE, and ACQUIESCENCE is why the doctrine of equitable estoppel and the principles of fundamental fairness, Fair Notice and Due Process should PRECLUDE AND BAR the SEC from claiming XRP a security. In short, IMO, RIPPLE WINS.