The XRP court ruling clarifies the coding status, and the claims of claims by Bitcoin defenders
The long -term legal Ripple battle with the US Securities and Stock Exchange Committee (SEC) was a major turning point last year when Judge Angia Torres issued a decision on the legal status of XRP.
The ruling clarified that XRP retail sales do not constitute investment contracts, which effectively places them outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Education Council.
This decision was pivotal in shaping the regulatory understanding of digital assets, despite the ongoing discussions by Bitcoin advocates who continue to claim XRP lacking a clear classification.
The Ripple Bill Morgan lawyer has now dealt with these arguments directly, stressing that the legal clarity has been established as it matters more – in court.
There is an illogical nonsense that is published on the issue of legal clarity and XRP. The suggestion is that XRP lacks legal clarity because there is no “classifying” court what it is. Bitco Maxis says Bitcoin has been classified as a commodity but XRP has not been classified as such as
Torres says that retail sales are not securities
Morgan, a pro -recovery legal analyst, explained that the main case in a lawsuit for the Supreme Education Council against Ripple was never about the description of XRP itself as security or commodity, but whether the nature of its sale to investors meets the criteria of an investment contract under the current Securities Law.
Judge Torres found that XRP institutional sales meet this definition, while retail sales did not do so. This double result provided an accurate legal frame that separates XRP treatment based on how it is sold and from it.
Morgan explained that the American courts do not devote posters to digital assets. Instead, they solve conflicts based on the facts of the case. Therefore, the issue of whether XRP is a safety or a commodity that misses this point.
Clarity comes from how the court interprets the law in the context of the distribution of XRP – a discrimination that is often ignored by critics.
The Bitcoin classification argument lacks legal basis
Bitcoin supporters – which are often referred to as Bitcoin Maximals or “Maxis” – have argued that given that XRP did not receive a classification of organizational bodies such as SEC or the CFTC Futures Trading Committee (CFTC), it remains in a legal gray area.
It contrasts with this with the position of Bitcoin as a recognized commodity by both clients, indicating that this places Bitcoin on the most stable organizational feet.
Morgan stabbed in this logic, saying that the classification is not absolute and can differ depending on the legal framework of various countries. For example, Australian authorities are treated as property instead of a commodity.
He pointed out that insisting on one global classification is legally defective and undermines how the system of the court works in the United States.
In his opinion, Judge Torres’s ruling has already settled the issue of XRP legal sales, and this alone is meaningful.
Ripple supports the regulatory framework for encryption
In addition to the courtroom winning, Ripple also welcomed the legislative developments aimed at improving the regulatory environment of digital assets.
Stewart Aldouti, chief legal official at Ripple, supported the law of the digital assets market issued in the United States last week, which aims to provide clearer rules for classifying and organizing encrypted currencies.
Morgan repeated the feelings, adding that clarity should come through legal results instead of political statements or market assumptions.
He stressed that the court ruling on XRP provides a strong precedent for how to evaluate digital asset transactions to move forward.
Instead of focusing on stickers, he said, the organizers and participants in the industry should focus on how to use and sell assets in practice.
In a symbolic gesture of reconciliation, the founder of Ripple, Brad Garlinghyus, donated the artwork “Skull of Satoshi”-which is often seen as a satirical slogan for encryption culture-to the Bitcoin community.
Although this step is largely symbolic, this step seemed to be aimed at spreading hostile works among supporters of Blockchain platforms competing after hostilities.
The post -XRP court ruling clarifies the coding status, and the meters’ claims appeared by Bitcoin advocates first on Invezz
