And that 70 plus years of caselaw clearly established that in an investment contract transaction, the underlying asset is NOT the security. In fact, specific to Crypto, in the Telegram case, the Court ruled very clearly (TWICE in fact) that the token itself was NOT the security. Even Howey itself, clearly states that it is irrelevant whether the underlying asset is speculative or lacks intrinsic value. As for the 2019 framework Amanda references, it stated that a cryptocurrency being utilized as a substitute for fiat currency or utilized in a payment system, was UNLIKELY to satisfy Howey. Btw, in 2014, more than 6 years before the SEC filed suit against Ripple, the @USGAO described XRP as a “virtual currency utilized in a decentralized payment protocol called Ripple.” Yet, the @SECGov ignored all the CLARITY Amanda alleges, and argued XRP itself was a security regardless of how it was acquired (including for non-investment purposes) and regardless of whether the acquirer had any connection to @Ripple or its executives, violating 76 years of legal precedent. The funny thing about this post is after reading it, I thought to myself: Amanda sounds like someone working for the SEC during the period of time in question: wherein a federal judge, overseeing discovery in the @Ripple case, described SEC lawyers as attorneys lacking faithful allegiance to the law; wherein she would’ve supported the denial of a BTC Spot ETF and be labeled “arbitrary and capricious” by an appellate court; and wherein she would’ve been part of the legal team sanctioned by a federal judge (in Debt Box) for committing fraud against the Court. But I didn’t want to even suggest such a thing because it could slander one’s reputation. Let’s be honest, as an attorney, being associated with Gensler’s SEC is as bad as it gets. It’s an insult of the highest degree. But then I looked up Amanda and realized she served as @GaryGensler’s Senior Counselor and the SEC Chief of Staff. 😂 You can’t make this shit up.