A CFD összetett eszköz, Ă©s a tƑkeĂĄttĂ©tel miatt a hirtelen vesztesĂ©g jelentƑs kockĂĄzatĂĄval jĂĄr. EnnĂ©l a szolgĂĄltatĂłnĂĄl a lakossĂĄgi befektetƑi szĂĄmlĂĄk 80%-ĂĄn vesztesĂ©g keletkezik a CFD-kereskedĂ©s sorĂĄn. Fontolja meg, hogy Ă©rti-e a CFD-k mƱködĂ©sĂ©t Ă©s hogy megengedheti-e magĂĄnak a vesztesĂ©g magas kockĂĄzatĂĄt.
A CFD összetett eszköz, Ă©s a tƑkeĂĄttĂ©tel miatt a hirtelen vesztesĂ©g jelentƑs kockĂĄzatĂĄval jĂĄr. EnnĂ©l a szolgĂĄltatĂłnĂĄl a lakossĂĄgi befektetƑi szĂĄmlĂĄk 80%-ĂĄn vesztesĂ©g keletkezik a CFD-kereskedĂ©s sorĂĄn. Fontolja meg, hogy Ă©rti-e a CFD-k mƱködĂ©sĂ©t Ă©s hogy megengedheti-e magĂĄnak a vesztesĂ©g magas kockĂĄzatĂĄt.

Ripple's Legal Victory: A Turning Point for Crypto Regulation? đŸ’„

12:33 2023. jĂșlius 14.

Yesterday, after nearly a three-year legal battle, Ripple won the case against the SEC. Following this announcement, Ripple's gains reached as high as 90%, and the token's price surged from 0.47 to 0.90 USDT. Today, XRP is being traded at 0.77 USDT, which is still over 63% above its previous level.

 

Kezdjen befektetni még ma, vagy próbålja ki ingyenes demónkat

ÉlƑ szĂĄmla regisztrĂĄciĂł DEMÓ SZÁMLA Mobil app letöltĂ©se Mobil app letöltĂ©se

What was the SEC vs Ripple case about?

The subject of the case was whether XRP, a digital asset or cryptocurrency created by Ripple Labs Inc., should be classified as a security under U.S. law. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had alleged that Ripple conducted an unregistered securities offering by selling XRP.

 

What are the conclusions?

XRP cannot be classified as a security. The court applied the Howey Test, a legal standard used to determine whether certain transactions qualify as "investment contracts" and thus securities. The court found that while XRP investors may have had an expectation of profit, these profits were not solely derived from the efforts of Ripple or a third party. Therefore, XRP did not meet all the criteria of the Howey Test and could not be classified as a security. This decision sets a significant precedent for the classification and regulation of cryptocurrencies in the future.

 

What is the true verdict from the court? 🔎

The court ruled in favor of Ripple, granting its motion for summary judgment on the SEC's first claim for relief. The court found that the SEC failed to prove that the XRP sold by Ripple was an "investment contract" and therefore a "security" under federal securities laws. The court reasoned that the purchasers of XRP did not have an expectation of profits based on the efforts of Ripple. Additionally, the court denied the SEC's motion for summary judgment on Ripple's fair notice defense, citing genuine issues of material fact as to whether the SEC provided Ripple with fair notice that its sales of XRP could be illegal securities transactions.

The court also upheld Ripple's fair notice defense, noting that the SEC's guidance on when digital assets may be classified as securities was not clear at the time of Ripple's XRP sales. No penalty was imposed on Ripple, as the court found that Ripple did not have fair notice from the SEC that it was violating the law. The court's ruling does not affect the status of future sales of XRP, and it dismissed the SEC's claims against Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen, finding that the SEC failed to prove that they aided and abetted Ripple's alleged violations.

 

What about ICO and fundraising?

The sale of a token on an exchange is not deemed a security. However, the court also made reference to the Initial Coin Offering and the fundraiser round before the ICO, which was directed towards private funds and venture capitals. Although this judgment was not the subject of this case, it is not as optimistic as it could be.

The court ruled that Ripple's sale of XRP to institutional investors constituted an unlawful security sale, while sales to random individuals did not. The court's distinction was based on the fact that the random buyers couldn't know if their payments went to Ripple or another seller of XRP. However, being realistic, this should not matter under the Howey test, which focuses on whether buyers can expect profits from the efforts of a third party. The court's decision could have implications for other projects like Ethereum, which also had a pre-sale of tokens with certain similarities.

While the ruling may be a victory for Ripple, whether it will be long lived is uncertain and it leaves numerous securities-related questions unanswered. As the crypto community awaits further developments, it emphasizes the need for a fair and comprehensive assessment that provides clarity and stability for both crypto projects and investors in the evolving regulatory landscape.

 

Summing up

The court's decision indeed carries significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry, as it establishes a precedent for the classification and regulation of cryptocurrencies going forward. However, there is a possibility that both Ripple and the SEC will appeal the recent ruling. Furthermore, concerns arise from Judge Analisa Torres' statement declaring the $700 million in XRP sales as unlawful. Therefore, the legal proceedings may be far from over and further actions will be taken as the parties involved seek ultimate clarity and resolution.

 

Looking at the weekly chart, Ripple's price broke out from consolidation and reached resistance at 0.9000, which corresponds to the peaks from February and March 2022, where sellers emerged. If the upward movement resumes and the mentioned resistance is broken, a potential move towards 1.1850 would not be ruled out.

Regarding the D1 timeframe, attention should be paid to the support level determined by the local geometry of 1:1. As long as the price remains above this level, there is a chance for another attempt to break the resistance at 0.90 USD. However, if the geometry is invalidated, a larger downward correction may occur.

Ezen tartalmat az XTB S.A. kĂ©szĂ­tette, amelynek szĂ©khelye VarsĂłban talĂĄlhatĂł a következƑ cĂ­men, Prosta 67, 00-838 VarsĂł, LengyelorszĂĄg (KRS szĂĄm: 0000217580), Ă©s a lengyel pĂ©nzĂŒgyi hatĂłsĂĄg (KNF) felĂŒgyeli (sz. DDM-M-4021-57-1/2005). Ezen tartalom a 2014/65/EU irĂĄnyelvĂ©nek, ami az EurĂłpai Parlament Ă©s a TanĂĄcs 2014. mĂĄjus 15-i hatĂĄrozata a pĂ©nzĂŒgyi eszközök piacairĂłl , 24. cikkĂ©nek (3) bekezdĂ©se , valamint a 2002/92 / EK irĂĄnyelv Ă©s a 2011/61 / EU irĂĄnyelv (MiFID II) szerint marketingkommunikĂĄciĂłnak minƑsĂŒl, tovĂĄbbĂĄ nem minƑsĂŒl befektetĂ©si tanĂĄcsadĂĄsnak vagy befektetĂ©si kutatĂĄsnak. A marketingkommunikĂĄciĂł nem befektetĂ©si ajĂĄnlĂĄs vagy informĂĄciĂł, amely befektetĂ©si stratĂ©giĂĄt javasol a következƑ rendeleteknek megfelelƑen, Az EurĂłpai Parlament Ă©s a TanĂĄcs 596/2014 / EU rendelete (2014. ĂĄprilis 16.) a piaci visszaĂ©lĂ©sekrƑl (a piaci visszaĂ©lĂ©sekrƑl szĂłlĂł rendelet), valamint a 2003/6 / EK eurĂłpai parlamenti Ă©s tanĂĄcsi irĂĄnyelv Ă©s a 2003/124 / EK bizottsĂĄgi irĂĄnyelvek hatĂĄlyon kĂ­vĂŒl helyezĂ©sĂ©rƑl / EK, 2003/125 / EK Ă©s 2004/72 / EK, valamint az (EU) 2016/958 bizottsĂĄgi felhatalmazĂĄson alapulĂł rendelet (2016. mĂĄrcius 9.) az 596/2014 / EU eurĂłpai parlamenti Ă©s tanĂĄcsi rendeletnek a szabĂĄlyozĂĄsi technikai szabĂĄlyozĂĄs tekintetĂ©ben törtĂ©nƑ kiegĂ©szĂ­tĂ©sĂ©rƑl a befektetĂ©si ajĂĄnlĂĄsok vagy a befektetĂ©si stratĂ©giĂĄt javaslĂł vagy javaslĂł egyĂ©b informĂĄciĂłk objektĂ­v bemutatĂĄsĂĄra, valamint az egyes Ă©rdekek vagy összefĂ©rhetetlensĂ©g utĂĄni jelek nyilvĂĄnossĂĄgra hozatalĂĄnak technikai szabĂĄlyaira vonatkozĂł szabvĂĄnyok vagy egyĂ©b tanĂĄcsadĂĄs, ideĂ©rtve a befektetĂ©si tanĂĄcsadĂĄst is, az A pĂ©nzĂŒgyi eszközök kereskedelmĂ©rƑl szĂłlĂł, 2005. jĂșlius 29-i törvĂ©ny (azaz a 2019. Ă©vi Lap, mĂłdosĂ­tott 875 tĂ©tel). Ezen marketingkommunikĂĄciĂł a legnagyobb gondossĂĄggal, tĂĄrgyilagossĂĄggal kĂ©szĂŒlt, bemutatja azokat a tĂ©nyeket, amelyek a szerzƑ szĂĄmĂĄra a kĂ©szĂ­tĂ©s idƑpontjĂĄban ismertek voltak , valamint mindenfĂ©le Ă©rtĂ©kelĂ©si elemtƑl mentes. A marketingkommunikĂĄciĂł az ÜgyfĂ©l igĂ©nyeinek, az egyĂ©ni pĂ©nzĂŒgyi helyzetĂ©nek figyelembevĂ©tele nĂ©lkĂŒl kĂ©szĂŒl, Ă©s semmilyen mĂłdon nem terjeszt elƑ befektetĂ©si stratĂ©giĂĄt. A marketingkommunikĂĄciĂł nem minƑsĂŒl semmilyen pĂ©nzĂŒgyi eszköz eladĂĄsi, felajĂĄnlĂĄsi, feliratkozĂĄsi, vĂĄsĂĄrlĂĄsi felhĂ­vĂĄsĂĄnak, hirdetĂ©sĂ©nek vagy promĂłciĂłjĂĄnak. Az XTB S.A. nem vĂĄllal felelƑssĂ©get az ÜgyfĂ©l ezen marketingkommunikĂĄciĂłban foglalt informĂĄciĂłk alapjĂĄn tett cselekedeteiĂ©rt vagy mulasztĂĄsaiĂ©rt, kĂŒlönösen a pĂ©nzĂŒgyi eszközök megszerzĂ©sĂ©Ă©rt vagy elidegenĂ­tĂ©sĂ©Ă©rt. Abban az esetben, ha a marketingkommunikĂĄciĂł bĂĄrmilyen informĂĄciĂłt tartalmaz az abban megjelölt pĂ©nzĂŒgyi eszközökkel kapcsolatos eredmĂ©nyekrƑl, azok nem jelentenek garanciĂĄt vagy elƑrejelzĂ©st a jövƑbeli eredmĂ©nyekkel kapcsolatban.

share
back
Xtb logo

Csatlakozzon az XTB Csoport több mint 1 000 000 ĂŒgyfelĂ©hez a vilĂĄg minden tĂĄjĂĄrĂłl.

SĂŒtiket hasznĂĄlunk

Az „Összes elfogadĂĄsa” gombra kattintva elfogadja a sĂŒtik tĂĄrolĂĄsĂĄt az eszközĂ©n, a webhelyen valĂł navigĂĄciĂł javĂ­tĂĄsa, a webhelyhasznĂĄlat elemzĂ©se Ă©s a marketing tevĂ©kenysĂ©geink tĂĄmogatĂĄsa Ă©rdekĂ©ben.

Ez a csoport a weboldalunkhoz szĂŒksĂ©ges sĂŒtiket tartalmaz. Ezek olyan funkciĂłban vesznek rĂ©szt, mint a nyelvi beĂĄllĂ­tĂĄsok, a forgalomelosztĂĄs vagy a felhasznĂĄlĂłi munkamenet megtartĂĄsa. Ezek a sĂŒtik nem tilthatĂłk le.

SĂŒti nĂ©v
LeĂ­rĂĄs
SERVERID
userBranchSymbol LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 2.
adobe_unique_id LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 1.
test_cookie LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 8.
SESSID LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 2.
__hssc LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 8.
__cf_bm LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 8.
intercom-id-iojaybix LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. november 26.
intercom-session-iojaybix LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 8.

Olyan eszközöket hasznĂĄlunk, amelyek segĂ­tsĂ©gĂ©vel elemezhetjĂŒk oldalunk hasznĂĄlatĂĄt. Az ilyen adatok segĂ­tsĂ©gĂ©vel tudjuk javĂ­tani a webszolgĂĄltatĂĄsunk felhasznĂĄlĂłi Ă©lmĂ©nyĂ©t.

SĂŒti nĂ©v
LeĂ­rĂĄs
_gid LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 9.
_gat_UA-68597847-1 LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 8.
_gat_UA-121192761-1 LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. szeptember 8.
_ga_CBPL72L2EC LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2026. mĂĄrcius 1.
_ga LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2026. mĂĄrcius 1.
UserMatchHistory LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 31.
AnalyticsSyncHistory LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 31.
__hstc LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2023. mĂĄrcius 7.
__hssrc

Ez a sĂŒti-csoport arra szolgĂĄl, hogy az Önt Ă©rdeklƑ tĂ©mĂĄk hirdetĂ©seit jelenĂ­tse meg. TovĂĄbbĂĄ lehetƑvĂ© teszi marketingtevĂ©kenysĂ©geink nyomon követĂ©sĂ©t, Ă©s segĂ­t mĂ©rni hirdetĂ©seink teljesĂ­tmĂ©nyĂ©t.

SĂŒti nĂ©v
LeĂ­rĂĄs
MUID LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 26.
_omappvp LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2035. februĂĄr 11.
_omappvs LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 1.
_uetsid LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 2.
_uetvid LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 26.
_fbp LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄjus 30.
fr LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2022. december 7.
lang
_ttp LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 26.
_tt_enable_cookie LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 26.
_ttp LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 26.
hubspotutk LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2023. mĂĄrcius 7.

EbbƑl a csoportbĂłl szĂĄrmazĂł sĂŒtik eltĂĄroljĂĄk az oldal hasznĂĄlata sorĂĄn megadott beĂĄllĂ­tĂĄsokat, Ă­gy azok egy idƑ utĂĄn mĂĄr fognak megjelenni, amikor meglĂĄtogatja az oldalt.

SĂŒti nĂ©v
LeĂ­rĂĄs
bcookie LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 1.
lidc LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. mĂĄrcius 2.
lang
bscookie LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2025. mĂĄrcius 1.
li_gc LejĂĄrati dĂĄtum 2024. augusztus 28.

Ez az oldal sĂŒtiket hasznĂĄl. A sĂŒtik az Ön böngĂ©szƑjĂ©ben tĂĄrolt fĂĄjlok, amelyeket a legtöbb webhely az internetes Ă©lmĂ©ny szemĂ©lyre szabĂĄsĂĄhoz hasznĂĄl. TovĂĄbbi informĂĄcióért tekintse meg AdatvĂ©delmi nyilatkozatunkat. A sĂŒtiket a "BeĂĄllĂ­tĂĄsok" opciĂłra kattintva kezelheti. Ha elfogadja a sĂŒtik hasznĂĄlatĂĄt, kattintson az „Összes elfogadĂĄsa” gombra.

RĂ©giĂł Ă©s nyelv mĂłdosĂ­tĂĄsa
LakĂłhely szerinti orszĂĄg
Nyelv