Ripple’s long -standing legal battle with the American Securities and Exchange (SEC) commission marked a key turning last year when judge Analisa Torres rendered a decision on the legal status of XRP.
The decision said that XRP’s retail sales do not constitute investment contracts, actually placing them outside the jurisdiction of the dry.
This decision was essential in the formation of regulatory understanding of digital assets, despite the ongoing debates of the Bitcoin defenders who continue to claim that XRP lacks clear classification.
Ripple’s lawyer, Bill Morgan, has now directly addressed these arguments, saying that legal clarity has been established where it is the most important – in court.
Retail sales XRP not titles, explains Torres.
Copy the link to the section
Morgan, a pro-Ripple legal analyst, stressed that the basic question of the SEC trial against Ripple never concerned the XRP labeling itself as a security or a commodity, but that the nature of its sale to investors met the criteria of an investment contract under the existing securities law.
Judge Torres found that XRP’s institutional sales responded to this definition, while retail sales did not do so. This double result provided a nuanced legal framework that separates XRP treatment as a function of the way and the sale.
Morgan explained that US courts do not attribute digital active labels. Instead, they solve disputes based on the facts of a case. Therefore, the question of whether XRP is security or merchandise lacks the point.
Clarity comes from the way in which the Court interpreted the law in the context of the distribution of XRP – a distinction often neglected by criticism.
The Bitcoin classification argument lacks legal landing
Copy the link to the section
Bitcoin supporters – often called maximalists of Bitcoin or “Maxis” – argued that, because XRP has not received a classification of regulatory organizations such as the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), it remains in a legal gray area.
They contrast this with Bitcoin status as a commodity recognized by the two agencies, suggesting that this place Bitcoin on a firmer regulatory basis.
Morgan challenged this logic, declaring that the classification is not absolute and can vary depending on the legal framework of different countries. For example, the Australian authorities treat Bitcoin as a property rather than as a commodity.
He noted that insistence on a single universal classification is legally imperfect and undermines the functioning of the judicial system in the United States.
In his opinion, the decision of judge Torres has already settled the question of the legal status of XRP for retail sales, and this alone constitutes a significant clarity.
Ripple supports the regulatory framework for crypto
Copy the link to the section
In addition to victory in the audience, Ripple also praised legislative developments to improve the regulatory environment for digital assets.
Ripple’s legal director, Stuart Alderoty, approved the law on the clarity of the digital asset market adopted in the United States last week, which aims to provide clearer rules for the classification and regulation of cryptocurrencies.
Morgan echoes the feeling, adding that clarity should go through legal results rather than political declarations or market assumptions.
He argued that the Court’s decision on XRP offers a previous strong thing to find out how digital asset transactions should be assessed in the future.
Rather than setting labels, he said, regulators and industry participants should focus on how assets are used and sold in practice.
In a symbolic gesture of reconciliation, the co -founder of Ripple Brad Garlinghouse donated the work of art “Skull of Satoshi” – often considered as a satirical emblem of cryptographic culture – to the Bitcoin community.
Although largely symbolic, the move seemed to aim to disseminate the hostilities between the supporters of the rival platforms of blockchain after years of animosity.
