The Hinman documents, which were considered very important for the Ripple case, were finally disclosed.
The Hinman Documents features a speech by William Hinman, former director of the SEC, at the Yahoo Finance Summit in 2018.
These documents, which the SEC wanted to keep confidential, were disclosed by the Court's decision. It is considered important for the course of the case that the speech, which is accepted as legal guidance for the crypto money industry, supports Ripple's claims.
After the disclosure of the documents, Ripple General Counsel Stuart Alderoty made some statements. Alderoty stated that Hinman was influenced by someone and an investigation should be opened for this.
Before the speech, Hinman met with Vitalik Buterin and gave the example of Ethereum despite the objections "Was Hinman influenced by Buterin?" increased the number of questions.
Here are those explanations:
“It's been 5 years since Bill Hinman's infamous speech. Through the SEC's lawsuit against Ripple, these emails and speech drafts are now public. Thanks to this, we'll finally be able to see what's going on behind the scenes.
We can all see now that Hinman ignored many warnings that his speech contained fabricated analysis without the law, departed from the Howey test, exposed regulatory loopholes, and would create not only confusion, but "greater confusion".
Hinman, the SEC director, gave a speech in June 2018 declaring that a token is not a security when it becomes "decentralized enough" and devised some criteria to consider when deciding if a token has become "decentralized enough".
While Hinman claimed the speech was his personal opinion, he and the SEC touted it as a guide on digital assets. Then SEC Chairman Jay Clayton publicly pointed this out. Although the SEC has repeatedly contradicted this guidance in its lawsuit against us, it remains on the agency's website.
Let's take a look at what senior SEC officials said directly to Hinman as he prepared his speech.
“As the list of factors is so extensive and includes things that go beyond the typical Howey analysis, we are concerned that this may lead to further confusion about what a security is,” T&M said. but Hinman ignored these concerns.
T&M asked Hinman to adapt his newly invented criteria "more closely and clearly to Howey's analysis," but Hinman again ignored this suggestion.
Office of General Counsel (OGC) and T&M “Did this individual or group have a stake or other interest in the digital asset in a way that motivates them to make an effort to cause an increase in value in the digital asset?” Hinman continued to include it as one of the criteria, although he stated that the criterion as "is irrelevant".
T&M and OGC noted that Hinman bypassed the jurisdictional question of "whether a digital asset meets the security's legal standards." Hinman ignored the legislative loopholes regarding the SEC's jurisdiction over digital assets.
Hinman wrote on June 4 that he sees no "need to regulate ETH as a security" and will call Buterin that week to confirm "our understanding".
On June 12, OGC expressed its reservations about including a statement directly related to Ether in the speech. “Because this will make it difficult for the agency to take a different position on ETH in the future.” it was said. ETH remained in the conversation as an example.
So what should happen now? First, remove the speech from the SEC's website immediately.
An investigation must be conducted to understand what or who affected Hinman, why the disagreements were overlooked, and why the SEC touted the speech knowingly that it would create "greater confusion."
And finally, Hinman's speech should never be referenced again in any serious discussion of whether a token is a security. Unelected bureaucrats must faithfully enforce the law within the limits of their powers. They can't pass a new law like Hinman tried."