Ripple не может подать встречную апелляцию, поскольку SEC не подала форму C

cryptonews.ruPublicado a 2024-05-04Actualizado a 2024-10-04

SEC до сих пор не подала важную форму, необходимую для апелляции по иску Ripple. Журналистка Fox Business Элеанор Терретт сообщила, что форма C, в которой подробно изложены особенности апелляции SEC, отсутствует в Апелляционном суде второго округа, что затрудняет подачу встречной апелляции Ripple.

«SEC еще не подала свою форму C во Второй окружной суд, в которой будет подробно указано, что именно они обжалуют. Им нужно сделать это как можно скорее, чтобы Ripple знала, как действовать дальше. У Ripple также есть 14 дней, начиная с сегодняшнего дня, чтобы подать перекрестную апелляцию, если они того пожелают».

🚨NEW: The @SECGov has not filed its Form C with the Second Circuit yet which will detail what exactly they’re appealing. They need to do that pronto so that @Ripple knows how to proceed. Ripple also has 14 days from today to file a cross-appeal if they choose to.

Form C: pic.twitter.com/IomvRZXw9N

— Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) October 3, 2024

Вчера SEC подала узкую апелляцию на окончательное решение судьи Аналисы Торрес, которая частично поддержала Ripple, объявив XRP не ценной бумагой. Эта апелляция предполагает затяжную юридическую тяжбу, которая, по прогнозам экспертов, может продлиться до 2026 года.

В сообщении X адвокат Фред Рисполи предположил, что следующим шагом SEC может стать перенос даты подачи кратких сведений с 2 декабря 2024 года на январь 2025 года. Адвокат также заявил, что Ripple может подать вступительную краткую информацию примерно в то же время, что потенциально продлит срок до 2 марта 2025 года.

Форма C все еще отсутствует

Форма C необходима для дальнейшего развития судебного процесса. В форме подробно излагаются конкретные аспекты, которые оспаривает SEC. Поскольку SEC еще не подала форму C, критики указывают на неэффективность агентства и задаются вопросом, намеренно ли агентство затягивает процесс. Некоторые отметили, что регулятор мог «случайно» подать апелляцию. Другие высмеивают медлительность SEC, предполагая, что они вообще не понимают, что именно оспаривают.

Ripple нужна форма C SEC для подачи встречной апелляции. У компании есть всего 14 дней, чтобы подать апелляцию, и сообщество обеспокоено будущим развитием событий.

Тем временем адвокат Билл Морган ответил на пост Терретт, намекнув, что Ripple, скорее всего, подаст встречную апелляцию. В его твите говорилось: «Мне трудно поверить, что Ripple не подаст встречную апелляцию».

I find it difficult to believe Ripple will not file a cross-appeal. https://t.co/kS2rLsCIDa

— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) October 3, 2024

Lecturas Relacionadas

Forbes Feature: Stablecoin Cross-Border Payments Are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

A Forbes feature delves into the state of stablecoin-based cross-border payments, noting rapid growth but a key shortfall: while faster and more accessible, they are not yet cheaper. At a recent industry conference in Mexico City, optimism about technology, regulation, and volume was tempered by discussions with practitioners. The core issue is liquidity. Traditional FX brokers charge 60-70 basis points, and stablecoins promise to slash this to 2-5 basis points. However, this theoretical cost advantage cannot be realized until deep liquidity pools are established at scale, requiring significant institutional capital inflow. A major adoption barrier is trust. Businesses often rely on long-standing relationships with traditional brokers, valuing reliability over marginal cost savings. This shift will be gradual. Furthermore, successful companies in the space are not positioning themselves as replacements for legacy systems like SWIFT, but as complements. They leverage stablecoins for speed while using traditional rails for their standardization and reliability in ensuring accurate payment details—a critical factor for supplier payments to avoid customs issues. Companies like Caliza, experiencing high monthly growth, exemplify this hybrid approach. The industry anticipates consolidation, as long-term viability will depend on securing the essential trifecta: proper licensing, robust fiat on/off-ramps, and deep liquidity. Without these, firms risk being mere intermediaries rather than building sustainable businesses.

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Forbes Feature: Stablecoin Cross-Border Payments Are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Forbes Feature: Cross-Border Payments with Stablecoins are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

A Forbes feature on stablecoin cross-border payments highlights rapid industry growth but notes the cost advantage remains theoretical. While stablecoins offer faster, 24/7, and more accessible international transfers compared to traditional forex brokers (charging 60-70 bps), they have not yet achieved their promised lower costs of 2-5 bps. The primary hurdle is a lack of deep, scaled liquidity pools, according to Imran Ahmad of Bitso Business. He states costs will only drop significantly with large-scale institutional and banking participation. Adoption faces a deeper challenge: trust. Businesses often stick with traditional brokers based on long-standing personal relationships, not just fees. Ezra Kebrab of cross-border payment firm Caliza emphasizes that reliability in handling complex details like tax codes is as critical as speed and cost. Contrary to some narratives, successful companies like Caliza see stablecoins as complementing, not replacing, existing infrastructure like SWIFT, which excels at payment standardization. Caliza itself uses SWIFT for many transactions and has seen monthly growth exceeding 40%. Ahmad predicts a future industry consolidation, where success will hinge on three pillars: proper licensing, reliable fiat on/off-ramps, and robust liquidity.

链捕手Hace 6 min(s)

Forbes Feature: Cross-Border Payments with Stablecoins are Faster, But Not Yet Cheaper

链捕手Hace 6 min(s)

Li Feifei's Latest Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Claim to Have 'World Models,' We Need a Taxonomy

"World Model" has become a widely used yet ambiguous term in AI. Drawing from the classic POMDP framework (agent → action → state → observation), this article proposes a functional taxonomy to clarify the concept. It identifies three distinct types, categorized by their output in the perception-action loop: 1. **Renderers**: Output visual observations (pixels). These models, like advanced video generators, prioritize visual fidelity but often lack underlying physical accuracy. 2. **Simulators**: Output the state of the world (geometry, physics, dynamics). They provide a structurally accurate representation for professionals (e.g., architects) and serve as training environments for robots and AI agents. 3. **Planners**: Output actions. Given an observation and a goal, they determine what an agent should do next, closing the perception-action loop (e.g., vision-language-action models). While renderers are currently the most commercially mature and planners are the most aspirational, the article argues that **simulators are the crucial, underappreciated hub**. By working at the level of geometry and physics, a simulator can project upwards to create visuals for humans and downwards to predict action consequences for agents. The future lies in the convergence of these three functions. Emerging research and products, like World Labs' Marble model which outputs both visual splats and physical collision meshes, are beginning to blur these boundaries. The logical endpoint is a unified world foundation model capable of rendering, simulating, and planning based on a shared understanding of spatial and temporal structures—ultimately enabling machines to understand, imagine, and interact with the physical world.

链捕手Hace 13 min(s)

Li Feifei's Latest Article: When Video Generation, Robotics, and NVIDIA All Claim to Have 'World Models,' We Need a Taxonomy

链捕手Hace 13 min(s)

Bitcoin: Here’s why Bitcoin’s Q3 price rally could face a liquidity test

Bitcoin shows signs of nearing a market bottom, with on-chain data indicating heavy losses (Realized P/L Ratio at -0.35) and recent U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recording $223 million in net inflows, suggesting easing selling pressure and renewed institutional demand. This could strengthen Bitcoin's $60k support and support a Q3 recovery. However, the rally faces a critical liquidity test. Despite ETF inflows, stablecoin liquidity (USDC and USDT market caps) continues to contract, with over $1 billion exiting this week. As traders rebuild leveraged positions amid growing confidence, the lack of expanding spot liquidity may leave Bitcoin vulnerable to a liquidation-driven correction, potentially causing its Q3 rally to struggle to maintain momentum.

ambcryptoHace 23 min(s)

Bitcoin: Here’s why Bitcoin’s Q3 price rally could face a liquidity test

ambcryptoHace 23 min(s)

Here’s why Sonic’s price rebound may be more fragile than it looks

Sonic's recent price rebound appears fragile despite a short-term surge driven by a near-doubling of on-chain transactions and increased spot volume. However, the rally lacks a solid foundation: over a 30-day period, network transactions and spot volume remain down 65% and 31.6%, respectively. Crucially, daily active users have plummeted from a peak of 62,200 in early June to around 6,400, indicating a severe loss of user engagement and sustained demand. While perpetual traders show mild bullish sentiment, the network's high churn rate and thin activity suggest the recovery is limited. The rebound coincides with major governance changes, including leadership resignations and a halt to the token's annual mint, adding further uncertainty to Sonic's long-term outlook.

ambcryptoHace 3 hora(s)

Here’s why Sonic’s price rebound may be more fragile than it looks

ambcryptoHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot