Someone posted a comment that said “we get it: you and @freddyriz believe @Ripple and the @SECGov should’ve kissed Judge Torres’ ass more. That’s not it. In fact, I believe there’s a 70% chance she grants the relief requested and I’ll discuss it more in detail tomorrow. 👇 What I was expecting wasn’t ass kissing. And know, I’m not being super critical of the lawyers who filed it. They’re much more experienced than I am in these matters and experience is the greatest teacher in life. In fact, the lawyer who signed on behalf of Ripple is a former SEC Director of Enforcement. I was expecting some falling on the sword 🗡️ by the SEC that prior leadership was overly aggressive related to crypto, citing how an appellate court found it “arbitrary and capricious” or how SEC lawyers were sanctioned in Debt Box because of this over aggressive conduct against crypto. Hell, in the Ripple case, Judge Netburn, who was assisting Judge Torres, stated SEC lawyers “lacked faithful allegiance to the law.” I thought there would be a reference to pending legislation related to Crypto (Genius Act, Clarity Act) and that is indeed an exceptional circumstance, along with facilitating settlements, saving judicial resources, etc. I also thought Ripple would highlight how unfair it would be for all this regulatory clarity that’s coming, yet an injunction hanging over its head would place Ripple at a disadvantage against competitors (ie Circle). Banks and other companies prefer to do business with a company that doesn’t have an injunction against it. I’m sure some former SEC lawyers are reading this and thinking that the mere fact that I believed this kind of stuff would be included proved my lack of experience in these types of cases. Maybe. I expected more of an explanation that meets the high standard to get a judge to rescind her ruling that she firmly believes (whether right or wrong) is consistent with existing law, instead of assuming she’ll grant it because you cite a couple cases for her to hang her hat on to grant it - IF she so chooses. In sum, the argument filed by the parties could be summed up this way: “Look judge, elections have consequences, and this is one of them.” Tune in tomorrow and I’ll objectively give you the reasons she should grant it and the reasons she shouldn’t. And then @CryptoLawUS will do a poll on the outcome.