‘Professional Crypto Traders Have Never Heard Of LBC’: John Deaton

Last Updated:
‘Professional Crypto Traders Have Never Heard Of LBC’ John Deaton
  • Crypto Law founder John E Deaton tweeted that LBC offers the highest utility.
  • He claimed that not many professional crypto traders are even aware of the token.
  • LBRY said its win doesn’t matter until third-party exchanges can work with the SEC without fear.

Crypto Law founder John E. Deaton retweeted LBRY’s tweet addressing its victory yesterday. “We haven’t won yet,” said the LBRY, who claimed that it doesn’t matter if the judge says $LBC is not a security as long as third-party exchanges are “terrified of the SEC” to work alongside it.

The Deaton Law Firm’s managing director agreed with LBRY, adding,

If there was ever a utility token, it is LBC.

He argues that LBC offers the highest utility in comparison to any other counterpart. “Does it equal a 10th or 100th of #ETH, #XRP, #ADA, etc?” Deaton questioned. He even claims that not many professional crypto traders have even heard of LBC before.

On January 31, US financial regulator Securities and Exchange Commission settled its case against LBRY Inc. Due to the similar nature of the cases, holders of XRP in the Ripple community are optimistic about the SEC and Ripple’s lawsuit.

Moreover, as amicus curiae, lawyer John Deaton defended tech journalist Naomi Brockwell and demanded clarification regarding LBC secondary market transactions.

Deaton said the injunction was vague and general. Deaton highlighted a report by a commercial contract lawyer, Lewis Cohen, that studied all security cases in the U since the SEC vs. W.J. Howey Co. case as evidence that an individual who is not a party to the case is entitled to help a court by providing information and expertise.

Throughout Cohen’s analysis of security cases in the US, no court admitted that the underlying asset was security at any stage. The judge was convinced by Deaton’s defense that LBC’s secondary market transactions weren’t securities.

The SEC asked for an order that does not distinguish between holders of LBC who bought LBRY on the secondary market, the company’s management, or LBRY itself. The judge responded, “I’m going to make it clear that my order does not apply to secondary market sales.”

Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.