1. Home
  2. Howey

Howey

The Hinman docs: Implications for XRP, SEC credibility and more

The Hinman documents have been available to Ripple for over two years, and their public release has been eagerly awaited by many, but some were disappointed by the lack of any real bombshells.

The Hinman documents were finally unsealed and made publicly available on June 12 after a lengthy back and forth between Ripple and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but what exactly do they reveal?

The documents are extensive, and while they can be found in public resources like the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) or CourtListener, lawyer James Filan tweeted on June 13, compiling them into two URLs.

Speaking to Cointelegraph soon after the unsealing, pro-XRP lawyer and founder of CryptoLaw John Deaton shared his belief that “the documents themselves don’t impact the judge’s underlying analysis of whether XRP (XRP) was offered/sold by Ripple as an investment contract, or XRP’s status in the secondary markets in the United States.“

This is considered a key defense of Ripple during its legal battle with the SEC. But those keeping a close eye on the case will know that the documents were not expected to do so, despite the then SEC chair Jay Clayton referencing the speech as “the approach we take to evaluate whether a digital asset is a security,” the 2018 speech carried disclaimers that it was the personal views of the then director of corporation finance William Hinman, which “does not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.”

With the Hinman documents being such a hot topic, many other crypto lawyers have also wondered what the documents might mean for XRP and Ether (ETH).

A “nothingburger?”

After the documents were unsealed, many onlookers, such as Gabriel Shapiro, general counsel for crypto firm Delphi Labs, took to Twitter calling them a “nothingburger,” which had no impact on the case between Ripple and the SEC.

Pro-XRP lawyer and Hodl Law founder Fred Rispoli had a different take when appearing on the Thinking Crypto podcast on June 15. He suggests they are “explosive” because although “we all knew there’s a revolving door” between regulators and private firms — and “behind the scenes dealings” — the public rarely gets a chance to see it as clearly as it’s displayed in the emails.

In other words, while the documents might not help Ripple regarding an XRP security determination, it does impact the SEC’s credibility. It sheds further light on why Hinman gave the speech despite protests from other SEC divisions.

The documents also highlight what appears to be an acknowledgment from Laura Jarsulic — an attorney with the SEC’s Office of General Counsel — that tokens on a sufficiently decentralized network might exist in a “regulatory gap” where the tokens are “not a security because there’s no ‘controlling’ group,” but “there may be a need for regulation to protect purchasers” as occurs with credit cards and medication.

Comments from Jarsulic. Source: Hinman documents

This might be significant, as current SEC chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly said that he believes all cryptocurrencies except for Bitcoin (BTC) are securities and that rules for crypto already exist.

A boost to Ripple’s fair notice defense

Ripple’s fair notice defense refers to the argument that the SEC had not provided it with sufficient notice before suing it for committing securities fraud in December 2020.

However, the defense is generally not perceived to be strong, as longstanding court precedent — i.e., the Howey test that determines whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract or security — is regarded as fair notice.

But in the interview with Cointelegraph, Deaton suggested that the documents support Ripple’s argument that the speech sowed market confusion and hindered the ability of market participants to determine exactly what constitutes a security under the Howey test, saying:

“The documents do assist Ripple (and others) in arguing that the speech caused greater confusion in the markets, causing market participants to lack adequate notice of what was prohibited by existing law.”

The SEC’s credibility

The Hinman documents show the conversations between various SEC members as they sought to get the speech ready for public release.

As pointed out by Ripple’s chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty in a Twitter thread on June 13, the emails also highlight that Hinman had received feedback from other divisions of the SEC, noting that some of the factors he used when determining that Ether was not a security had no legal basis.

Deaton’s CryptoLaw hosted a panel on June 14, joined by fellow crypto lawyer Jeremy Hogan and former SEC securities lawyer Marc Fagel, who worked at the agency for 16 years.

During the panel, Fagel agreed that the email contained no real bombshells relevant to the case, but did highlight some potential conflicts of interest. He said on multiple occasions that he did not want to ascribe motivations to Hinman but added:

“I do try to see both sides of it. So I don’t like to leap to there’s something unethical here, although we can all agree that there’s some conflicted issues here and some really disappointing conduct here.”

Before and after working with the SEC, Hinman worked at a law firm called Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which was a member of the advocacy organization Enterprise Ethereum Alliance that seeks to drive the use of Ethereum blockchain technology.

According to the watchdog group Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research, the group that initially filed the freedom of information request that led to the Hinman documents, Hinman “continued to receive millions of dollars from Simpson Thacher while working at the SEC.”

The implication, as expanded upon by Hogan during the panel, is that Hinman was essentially being paid off to give Ether a free pass and say in his speech that Ether was not a security, which some people have previously referred to as “ETHGate.“

Related: Ripple’s Alderoty calls for probe into Bill Hinman and his infamous speech

Hogan had a similar take, suggesting that the emails did not contain much that Ripple could actively use in the case, but indicated that Hinman should be more concerned about the contents of the emails rather than the SEC, particularly when his earlier drafts of the speech referred to it as the “Ether speech.”

Ether’s bolstered position

Deaton also said that he believes “the speech documents are good for Ethereum” and “could also help ERC-20 tokens like Dragonchain,” which are governed by the Ethereum blockchain:

“If the SEC claimed the network was sufficiently decentralized, then those tokens have even a better fair notice argument than Ripple.”

This was something also referred to in the Office of General Counsel’s comments, with the division sharing that it had “reservations about including a statement directly about Ether in the speech,” as “it would be difficult for the agency to take a different position on Ether in the future.“

NFT Creator: 'Holy shit, I’ve seen that!’ — Coldie’s Snoop Dogg, Vitalik and McAfee NFTs

Bitcoin vs. Tulip Mania: Why the Comparison Wilts Under Scrutiny

Ripple vs. SEC: Could newly released documents tip the balance?

The court case between SEC and Ripple Labs has been ongoing for nearly two and a half years, but a summary judgment ruling could be made any day.

The ongoing case of the Securities and Exchange Commission v Ripple Labs could have a significant impact on the future of cryptocurrency regulations. 

Ripple first popped up in 2012 with the promise of providing financial institutions and other entities with faster, more affordable clearance of cross-border fund transfers. To that end, Ripple created the XRP Ledger and a cryptocurrency called XRP (XRP) to function as its native coin and facilitate transactions.

On Dec. 22, 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, alleging that the firm selling XRP represented an unregistered securities offering.

Ripple co-founder and former CEO Chris Larsen and current CEO Brad Garlinghouse were also named in the SEC’s charges.

Most entities on the receiving end of SEC enforcement actions choose to settle. In this case, however, Ripple chose to fight the charges — at great expense — and take the matter to court.

Ripple argued that XRP does not satisfy the Howey test, which is used to determine whether an investment contract exists  — and, therefore, whether a transaction is a security transaction. It also said that if XRP was, in fact, a security, the SEC had failed to give it fair notice under U.S. securities laws.

Enter the Hinman documents

The “Hinman documents” refer to a 2018 speech given by former SEC Director William Hinman and documents associated with writing it.

In the speech, Hinman said that Ether (ETH) should not be considered a security given its decentralized nature, stating:

“Putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.”

This was considered a landmark speech, as it signaled to the crypto industry that it could be possible for cryptocurrencies to transition from securities when they are first created to commodities once they are sufficiently decentralized.

This could have an impact on Ripple’s fair notice defense, which comes into play if Judge Analisa Torres finds that Ripple did indeed sell unregistered securities.

Ripple requested the documents in discovery, and the request was granted on Oct. 21, 2022. While the documents could be used as a part of Ripple’s defense, the SEC has attempted to keep them sealed on multiple occasions, arguing that they are irrelevant to the court’s summary judgment decision.

But on May 16, Judge Torres ruled that the Hinman documents are “judicial documents” subject to a strong presumption of public access and denied the SEC’s motion to seal.

Notably, the court did not state whether the documents will be relied upon when it decides on the summary judgment motions of each party; but given the statements of those who have seen the documents, it appears likely they will negatively affect the public image of the SEC.

Additionally, there are questions about whether Hinman had a conflict of interest when making the speech, as he worked at a law firm that is a member of an Ethereum advocacy organization before and after working for the SEC— and the documents may provide additional details around this.

Speaking during a Twitter Space shortly after the ruling, lawyer and CryptoLaw founder John Deaton predicted the documents will be:

“Disturbing, but not as shocking as maybe people think it’s going to be because there’s been, quite frankly, such a big buildup for it. [...] I believe when these emails come out, that the conflicts of interest will be even more highlighted.”

What does the latest ruling mean for the case?

While it’s still too early to tell what the ultimate outcome of the case will be, the court also denied certain motions to seal from Ripple, which included references linking Ripple’s revenues with XRP sales and the amount of compensation offered to trading platforms, among others.

In the Twitter Space, Deaton highlighted these sections as evidence likely to hurt Ripple’s chances of a complete victory, adding:

“I think the chances of Ripple getting a complete victory are much slimmer after reading this than I felt before. I still don’t think the SEC is getting a complete victory either.”

Deaton theorized that the courts could decide to fine Ripple for its early sales of XRP — relating to the initial coin offering and other transactions aimed at boosting the network — but that secondary sales of XRP and the coin itself are not securities.

Deaton’s thoughts on the subject were given further credibility when former SEC securities lawyer Marc Fagel added his voice to the Twitter Space, saying that he generally agreed with everything that had been said but that the SEC’s suit was worded in a way that focused on the tokens issued by Ripple and not secondary market transactions.

Fagel added that he thought Torres “would be overstepping to make a ruling on secondary sales,” but he believed they were helpful in the SEC’s case, as they illustrate how a secondary market would not have been created without Ripple issuing securities while promoting the network.

Could the case finally be reaching its conclusion?

In a May 17 Twitter thread, prominent pro-crypto lawyer Fred Rispoli suggested that the summary judgment ruling is already written and could be issued “any day now,” while also agreeing that a split decision was the most likely.

Deaton noted during the Twitter Space that he believes Judge Torres knows how she will rule but added that guessing how much is written “in its final form” would be pure speculation.

He also agreed that the decision could come down at any time, but he added that it could take another month or longer.

Magazine: NFT Creator: Top 10 crypto artist Trevor Jones on being rich, rekt and rich again

Bitcoin vs. Tulip Mania: Why the Comparison Wilts Under Scrutiny

Trade group accuses SEC of ‘stealthy’ overreach in Coinbase insider trading case

The Chamber of Digital Commerce has accused the SEC of trying to impose securities regulations via the “back door” of an insider trading lawsuit.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has again been accused of overstepping its authority and unfairly labeling crypto assets as securities, this time in its insider trading case against ex-Coinbase employees.

In an amicus brief filing on Feb. 22, the U.S.-based Chamber of Digital Commerce argued the case should be dismissed as it represented an expansion of the SEC’s “regulation by enforcement” campaign and seeks to characterize secondary market transactions as securities transactions.

“This case represents a stealthy, yet dramatic and unprecedented effort to expand the SEC’s jurisdictional reach and threatens the health of the U.S. marketplace for digital assets,” wrote Perianne Boring, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Digital Commerce.

The Chamber highlighted the “SEC’s encroachment into the digital assets market” was never authorized by Congress, and noted in other Supreme Court cases it has been ruled that regulators must first be granted authority by Congress.

“By acting without Congressional authorization, [the SEC] continues to contribute to a chaotic regulatory environment, harming the very investors it is charged to protect,” it wrote on Twitter.

The Chamber also argued that in bringing claims of securities fraud, the SEC was essentially asking the court to uphold that secondary market trades in the nine digital assets mentioned in an insider trading case against a former Coinbase employee constitute securities transactions, which it suggested was “problematic.”

“We have serious concerns about [the SEC’s] attempt to label these tokens as securities in the context of an enforcement action against third parties who had nothing to do with creating, distributing or marketing those assets,” Perianne added.

The Chamber cited the LBRY v SEC case in its brief, in which the judge had ruled that secondary market transactions would not be designated as securities transactions.

The judge had been persuaded by a paper from commercial contract attorney Lewis Cohen, which pointed out that no court had ever acknowledged the underlying asset was a security at any point since the landmark SEC v W. J. Howey Co. ruling — a case which set the precedent for determining whether a security transaction exists.

The latest amicus brief follows a similar filing from advocacy group the Blockchain Association on Feb. 13, which also argued that the SEC had exceeded its authority in the case and claimed it was “the latest salvo in the SEC’s apparent ongoing strategy of regulation by enforcement in the digital assets space.”

Related: Gary Gensler’s SEC is playing a game, but not the one you think

An amicus brief is filed by an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” which is an individual or organization not involved with a case but can assist the court by offering relevant information or insight.

The SEC in July sued former Coinbase Global product manager Ishan Wahi, brother Nikhil Wahi, and associate Sameer Ramani, alleging that the trio had used confidential information obtained by Ishan to make $1.5 million in gains from trading 25 different cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin vs. Tulip Mania: Why the Comparison Wilts Under Scrutiny

CFTC declares Ether as a commodity again in court filing

The community is hopeful that the assertion by the CFTC will put to bed claims that staked coins are securities according to the Howey Test.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has again labeled Ether (ETH) as a commodity in a Dec. 13 court filing — in contrast to statements from chief Rostin Behnam on Nov. 30 suggesting that Bitcoin was the sole cryptocurrency that should be viewed as a commodity.

In its lawsuit against Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX, and sister company Alameda Research, the regulator on multiple occasions referred to Ether, Bitcoin (BTC) and Tether (USDT) "among others" as "commodities" under United States law.

“Certain digital assets are “commodities,” including bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH), tether (USDT) and others, as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9).”

However, there appears to be some disagreement within the CFTC itself regarding whether Ether should be viewed as a commodity or not, at least in recent weeks. 

During a crypto event at Princeton University on Nov. 30,  CFTC chief Rostin Benham reportedly suggested that Bitcoin is the only crypto asset that should be viewed as a commodity — walking back previous comments which asserted that Ether may also be a commodity.

The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler has also had an undetermined stance on Ether in recent months.

In an interview with Jim Cramer during the hosts' Mad Money show on Jun. 27, Gensler confirmed that Bitcoin was a commodity adding: “That's the only one I'm going to say.”

Gensler has previously suggested Ether was a security after its initial coin offering but had become more decentralized and turned into a commodity since then.

In September, his stance appeared to have shifted again after Ether’s transition to proof-of-stake (PoS), when he argued that staked tokens may constitute securities under the Howey test.

The designation of crypto assets in the U.S. is particularly important, as the CFTC regulates commodities futures while securities like bonds and stocks are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Related: Judge orders CFTC to serve Ooki DAO founders with lawsuit

Crypto skeptic Senator Elizabeth Warren is reportedly working on a bill that would give the SEC most of the regulatory authority over the crypto industry, and Intercontinental Exchange Inc CEO Jeffrey Sprecher is also confident that crypto assets will be handled like securities — suggesting at a financial services conference on Dec. 6 that this would result in greater consumer protections.

Belgium has taken a different stance on the designation however, with its Financial Services and Markets Authority asserting in a Nov. 22 report that Bitcoin, Ether and other crypto assets issued solely by computer code do not constitute securities.

Bitcoin vs. Tulip Mania: Why the Comparison Wilts Under Scrutiny