The Ruling on XRP: Uncertainty and Inconsistency in the Cryptocurrency Market
The recent ruling on SEC v. Ripple Labs et al. by judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York has created uncertainty in the cryptocurrency markets. Here are the key points to understand:
1. XRP’s Legal Status: The ruling suggests that XRP is considered an unlawfully sold investment contract when sold to VCs or institutional buyers. However, it is seen as a lawful “something else” when sold anonymously or distributed to employees or insiders.
2. Howey Test: The case revolves around whether Ripple Labs’ token distributions qualify as sales of securities under the Howey Test. This test defines an “investment contract” as a contract involving the investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others.
3. Ripple’s Loss on Institutional Sales: The court ruled against Ripple on institutional sales, stating that these sales should be considered securities. This decision aligns with the general consensus among legal commentators.
4. Ripple’s Win on Programmatic Sales: The court, however, ruled in favor of Ripple on programmatic sales, arguing that the expectation of profits prong of the Howey Test was not met. Programmatic buyers were unaware of whether their payments went to Ripple or other sellers, thus making it different from traditional securities.
5. Ripple’s Bizarre Win on Other Distributions: Surprisingly, Ripple also won on the basis that other distributions, such as those to employees, did not meet the “investment of money” prong of the Howey Test. This decision seems contradictory to precedents and may be challenged on appeal.
Hot Take: Schrodinger’s Shitcoin – Regulatory Inconsistency
The legal status of XRP seems to have a dual nature, being a security in some instances and not in others. This lack of consistency in regulation is concerning. It is also an incorrect application of precedents regarding the Howey Test. This ruling leaves cryptocurrency issuers with two paths for development:
1. Risky Path: If regulations remain unchanged, new token issuers may take advantage of this narrow ruling to launch programmatic token schemes. However, the SEC may bring enforcement actions against these schemes in the future, harming the economy and investors.
2. Legislative Path: Congress must recognize the need for consistent regulation and pass laws to normalize cryptocurrency investment. This would create a well-defined legal status for tokens and establish an appropriate disclosure regime.
In conclusion, Ripple’s token sales should be considered legal in the cryptocurrency market. However, the ruling creates uncertainty and highlights the need for regulatory clarity and consistency.
By
By
By
By
By