SEC May Appeal Ripple Case, Says Journalist—Senate Candidate Joins The Debate

bitcoinistPublished on 2024-09-28Last updated on 2024-09-28

Abstract

The ongoing legal saga between Ripple Labs and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is heating up again as speculation...

The ongoing legal saga between Ripple Labs and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is heating up again as speculation mounts about a potential appeal from the SEC.

This comes after Judge Analisa Torres rendered a landmark decision in July 2023, finding that Ripple’s programmatic sales of XRP to ordinary investors did not breach securities laws.

The SEC, however, is apparently not happy with this ruling, especially in light of how it would affect any future regulatory proceedings.

The Potential Appeal Of The SEC

Journalist Eleanor Terrett of FOX Business recently shared observations from a former SEC attorney who thinks the agency will probably file an appeal of the decision.

Many others within the SEC, according to this attorney, believe the ruling has basic flaws and ought to be overturned. There is additional urgency because October 7 is the deadline for filing such an appeal.

The SEC would probably be more interested in reversing the portion of the order that deals with XRP programmatic sales than in challenging Ripple’s $125 million fine.

Marc Fagel, a former attorney for the SEC, has also spoken, stating that in the event of an appeal, it will primarily focus on how these programmatic sales were determined to be in compliance with securities laws.

This strategic emphasis may have a significant impact on future cryptocurrency regulations. It is highly likely that there will be more court battles in the future, with experts like lawyer Fred Rispoli estimating a 75% possibility that the SEC will move forward with an appeal.

XRP market cap currently at $33.2 billion. Chart: TradingView

Ripple’s Response And Market Reactions

Regardless of these changes, Ripple’s leadership maintains their confidence. Indicating their conviction that the matter has come to a close, CEO Brad Garlinghouse and Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty have publicly said that they do not plan to appeal the court’s decision.

They contend that more legal wrangling could jeopardize capital formation and investor trust, two important facets of the SEC’s mandate.

This uncertainty has pushed the price of XRP in the markets to a highly volatile movement. Though the movements remain still miniscule, XRP’s price remains stuck at about $0.59, far away from a significant deviation from the highs lately.

Awaiting an end to this uncertainty in form of a clarification, trading volumes have dropped due to the prospects that it may head to an appeal.

US Senate Candidate: Appeal Will Fail

Meanwhile, Atty. John Deaton, a candidate for Massachusetts Senate, has offered opinions on the Ripple issue, expressing belief that an appeal of the ruling would not be successful. Deaton, who was instrumental in Ripple’s legal victory about programmatic sales, thinks the Second Circuit Court is not likely to reverse the decision.

His point of view stems from the Howey Test application, in which he notes the judge concentrated on just the third prong—that of the “expectation of rewards based on the efforts of others.”

Deaton said, referencing the affidavits of 3,800 XRP holders, Judge Torres appropriately used the third element in her ruling.

These testimonials undermined the assertion that Ripple’s programmatic sales constituted an investment contract by supporting Ripple’s position—that XRP investors did not expect gains based on the company’s efforts. Deaton therefore feels sure the Second Circuit would not overturn the decision.

Featured image from WIRED, chart from TradingView

Christian Encila

Christian Encila

Christian, a journalist and editor with leadership roles in Philippine and Canadian media, is fueled by his love for writing and cryptocurrency. Off-screen, he's a cook and cinephile who's constantly intrigued by the size of the universe.

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit25m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit25m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit29m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit29m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1h ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy SAGA

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Saga (SAGA) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Saga (SAGA) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Saga (SAGA)After purchasing your Saga (SAGA), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Saga (SAGA)Easily trade Saga (SAGA) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

2.1k Total ViewsPublished 2024.04.09Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy SAGA

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SAGA (SAGA) are presented below.

活动图片