The SEC lost on all key points—that’s why they appealed. Today, Ripple filed a cross-appeal to ensure nothing’s left on the table, including the argument that there can’t be an "investment contract" without there being essential rights and obligations found in a contract. Importantly, the SEC has already said they aren’t appealing the ruling that XRP itself isn’t a security. (They even apologized in another case for suggesting a token itself could be a security!) That’s the law, and an appeal on these other issues doesn’t change it.

The Binance resolution of anti-money laundering (etc.) violations is a necessary step to bring the crypto industry into compliance with these important laws and safeguards. Big banks all went through some version of this years ago. Importantly, nowhere does the DOJ suggest that Binance committed securities law violations or even suggest that the assets traded on its platform are securities.

A huge win today – as a matter of law - XRP is not a security. Also a matter of law - sales on exchanges are not securities. Sales by executives are not securities. Other XRP distributions – to developers, to charities, to employees are not securities. The only thing the Court found constitutes an investment contract is past direct XRP sales to institutional clients. There will be further court proceedings only on these institutional sales per the Court’s order.

1/ It’s been 5 years since Bill Hinman gave his infamous speech – and through the SEC’s lawsuit against @Ripple (and 7 court orders), we can finally share what happened behind the scenes through the now public emails / drafts of the speech. 2/ We now can all see Hinman ignored multiple warnings that his speech contained made-up analysis with no basis in law, was divorced from the Howey factors, exposed regulatory gaps, and would create not just confusion, but “greater confusion” in the market.

Yesterday’s opinion from the Court on Ripple and the SEC’s proposed expert opinions – if you didn’t read all 57 pages, here’s the TLDR… 1/4 Specifically – not only is the SEC’s expert on “reasonable expectations of an XRP purchaser” struck from the record, but so is their expert who tried to say what “caused” the price of XRP to change. 2/4

Re: yesterday’s CoinDesk op-ed – I’m glad even the detractors recognize that the SEC’s invitation to “come in and register” is like trying to take a “Ford Model T into space.” But if you are going to try to debunk Ripple’s legal positions, at least understand them first 🙄. As it clearly states in our briefs, Ripple does not depend on a conclusion that XRP was purchased for use – though such a conclusion, as shown by amici briefs and the non-speculative evidence, would defeat the SEC’s claims.

Investigators should ask: Was @GaryGensler acting alone when meeting with SBF? Was this a last gasp effort to finally manufacture that ever elusive “SEC registration” the Chair has been after? Would SBF have ended up with even more consumer assets under his control?

https://twitter.com/jeffjohnroberts/status/1591123353662033920

If the @SECGov was actually crypto’s lawful “cop on the beat” there would be no need for the Chair to repeatedly cajole market participants to “come in and register.” Regulators with proper jurisdiction don’t need to cajole, bully or enter into back-room deals.

Today, we filed our preliminary legal response to the SEC’s complaint. With it, we start to set the record straight and correct many misconceptions and contradictions within their allegations. 1/5
ripple.com/insights/sec-u… No other country has classified XRP as a security. The SEC is at odds with its counterparts in the US & peers in other G20 markets. Ripple never held an ICO, nor did we ever sell or offer XRP as an investment. For 8 yrs, XRP has traded in an open market independent of Ripple. 2/5