Prominent XRP supporter Attorney John Deaton has highlighted potential missteps by past U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) leaders in the Ripple Labs Inc. litigation. Central to Deaton’s assertions is a sophisticated nexus involving ex-SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, chief enforcer William Hinman, and Ethereum’s co-creator, Joseph Lubin.
Deaton, via Twitter, posits that Clayton’s tenure set off events favorable to his legal firm, Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), and Lubin’s ConsenSys. Due to Clayton’s ties, Lubin’s choice to engage S&C guaranteed Clayton’s absence from decisions concerning his firm’s clientele. In Deaton’s perspective, this tactic might have skewed the voting mechanism.
Several #XRP holders got irritated at me b/c I said we must admit @ethereumJoseph, who quickly hired Sullivan & Cromwell, right after Clayton’s appointment, to represent @Consensys, including hiring several S&C lawyers as staff attorneys, including making a S&C Partner Deputy… https://t.co/7qxzkRjO0c
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) August 20, 2023
Hinman’s role deepens the mystery. Clayton’s suggestion for Hinman to connect with Lubin hints at a possible united front favoring ConsenSys. Deaton’s insights imply that Clayton’s keen interest in Lubin’s engagements, especially those with ConsenSys, indicate potential maneuvering.
Additionally, Deaton alleges Hinman of breaching professional ethics, emphasizing that Hinman overlooked SEC Ethics office cautions and prematurely labeled Bitcoin and Ethereum as non-securities. The gains Hinman purportedly made from his firm’s triumph post his public address spark suspicions about possible vested interests.
Clayton’s Post-SEC Involvement & the Ripple Case Outcome
Deaton delves deeper into Clayton’s affiliation with One River post his SEC tenure, noting its substantial investments in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Clayton’s decision to later back action against Ripple, rivaling his previous client, has caused a stir.
Intriguingly, Deaton underscores the potential game-changer had Ripple‘s leaders, Brad Garlinghouse and Stuart Alderoty, opted for S&C’s services. His revelations beckon a wider discussion about the ethical constraints of legal proceedings and regulatory steps, spotlighting the possible implications of such intertwined stakes.
While the veracity of Deaton’s claims remains under scrutiny, they undoubtedly stir a discourse about accountability, moral standards, and potential vested interests within watchdog entities. Nonetheless, the digital currency sphere treads a legally intricate path. In the face of these unveilings, a meticulous inspection of affiliations shaping key cryptocurrency legal battles becomes imperative.