Two legal memos have been unsealed with respect to the SEC Vs. Ripple case.

James K. Filan states:  Overall favorable to Ripple and the Individual Defendants. Both memos are from Perkins Coie.

The first memo was prepared in February 2012 and sent to Jed McCaleb and Jesse Powell. It says that if NewCoin is sold in what now would look like an ICO.

I didn’t see the term ICO used, it would be likely that it would be considered a security. But Ripple then revised its business plan and went back to Perkins Coie, which issued a second memo in October 2012.

This second memo was sent to Chris Larsen and Jed McCaleb.

The October memo was more positive and while it said that there was a “small” risk that the SEC could disagree, Perkins Coie concluded that Ripple Credits should not be considered securities.

The memo also suggested steps Ripple could take to minimize the risk that the SEC would disagree with Perkins Coie. The memos cover the full landscape of legal issues (not just the issue of securities) and I think show how careful Ripple was trying to be. Also, this was 5 years before the SEC really even started talking about digital tokens.

It seems to me that Ripple was being very proactive, which is very important. There certainly is nothing in these memos that suggests that Ripple was being reckless or ignored any substantial risks. In fact, the memos suggest the opposite – that Ripple was being careful.

In response:  Stuart Alderoty expressed:  The conclusion of these now public 2012 memos is clear: XRP “do not constitute securities.”

The fact that Ripple had the foresight to seek legal advice from a prominent firm in 2012 – in the absence of clear case law and 5 years before the SEC even started talking about digital assets – should be applauded.

Community Reaction:  Unfortunately, the analysis hinges entirely on the fact that XRP (Ripple credits) are used as instruments for moving value, and not for speculative purposes. I think we can all agree that both are true, so from my perspective this memo doesn’t change anything.

Just pointing to the fact that the analysis relies on the premise that XRP is used for moving value and not for speculative purposes. It’s explicitly written, so yeah, it’s great that Ripple was careful, but that’s just about the extent of it.

Except for the fact that we have evidence that Ripple (Open coin) was prudent enough to minimize risk by consulting a reputable law firm.

Now show SEC Government legal write up from 2012 when they allege it was well known it was a security?

Show us in writing what direction that the sec gov has out that would change anyone’s opinion since this memo? The Howey test was prior to the memo. SEC GOV waited 8 years to say anything that contradicts that statement.

SEC cites “Brad and Chris were reckless with greed, knowingly XRP was a security, still went ahead and sold XRP”. Memos showed otherwise, Ripple paid outside attorney for legal opinion. “a small chance the SEC will label XRP a security” There, you have it in WRITING.

Same logic applies to ETH and every other crypto out there.