The recent ruling on XRP’s securities status is regarded as a watershed moment in the crypto community. However, lawyers caution that the implications are not straightforward. On July 13, Judge Torres determined that XRP is not a security when sold to the general public. This decision sparked jubilation among XRP token holders and led to a surge in the token’s price. Industry experts believe the ruling could have an impact on the ongoing lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance, which are accused of offering unregistered securities.
Luke Martin, the founder of crypto investment firm Venture Coinist, describes the decision as “inconceivably bullish” for the industry. He suggests that the SEC’s case against Coinbase and Binance will be weakened by this ruling. Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton and Gemini CEO Tyler Winklevoss also share this sentiment, emphasizing the potential benefits for altcoins and stating that the ruling undermines the SEC’s authority over cryptocurrencies. Several major platforms, including Coinbase, Kraken, and iTrustShares, have already relisted XRP following the decision.
However, amid the celebration, digital asset lawyers offer words of caution. They highlight that the ruling by Judge Torres is only partial and not legally binding. It may serve as persuasive commentary for future courts to consider but could still be appealed and potentially reversed. The possibility of the SEC appealing the decision and a higher court overturning it remains a concern.
Additionally, Ripple still faces the SEC’s claim that Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen “aided and abetted” the institutional sale of XRP. This aspect of the case was set aside by Judge Torres and will likely be contested at trial. Lawyers argue that Ripple made significant profits from institutional sales and must address these allegations.
While the ruling is seen as a positive development for XRP, it is important to exercise caution before drawing definitive conclusions. The legal landscape surrounding cryptocurrencies remains complex and subject to ongoing litigation. The outcome of this case could influence future decisions but does not provide absolute clarity.