A few points:

<em>"Others have been promised to early investors in agreements that are not public."</em>

Absolutely false. We very carefully made the decision that no XRP would go to early investors. At the time, the legal landscape was entirely uncertain and people even argued that all cryptos were inherently counterfeit. We absolutely did not want to put any of our early investors at any legal risk and we absolutely would never have considered an agreement like this.

<em>"The XRP had been sold, so Ripple froze the $1 million USD from the sale.  This did not require intervention by the courts; Ripple simply used their power to freeze any transactions on the network (!) and since it happened through Bitstamp's Ripple gateway, the funds were on-network."</em>

Absolutely false. Ripple has no such power. Bitstamp froze the funds because there was a legal dispute over their ownership. The same thing would happen at, say, Poloniex if there were a dispute over the ownership of funds there.

With respect to Jed's agreement: Ripple has the primary right to determine what volume is legitimate and what volume is not. As you can probably figure out, Ripple and Jed are not exactly buddies right now and we have historically done everything we possibly could to keep Jed from dumping. I can't imagine us releasing XRP to Jed (remember, Ripple holds it) if we weren't convinced the volume was legitimate. He would have to sue us if that was his plan.

Ripple's litigation with Jed was not about us trying to take anything from him or keep him from making money. In fact, because he was prevented from dumping, the XRP he holds is worth much more than he would have gotten by dumping it. Ripple's litigation posture has always been to protect the market for XRP from insider dumping.

Also, Chris Larsen resigned his position as CEO. He's still a board member and almost as active as ever. In fact, I still report to him, as do two other people.