SEC prioritized Ripple while disregarding Sam Bankman-Fried and Charles Gasparino

The SEC’s emphasis on Ripple’s case raises concerns about the potential for the agency to overlook more significant matters, such as Sam Bankman-Fried’s.

The ongoing legal dispute between the SEC and Ripple regarding the XRP token is a result of the SEC’s overreaching in its efforts to regulate the crypto space, while it neglects more pressing matters, such as the Sam Bankman-Fried matter. The potential precedent for future digital asset regulations in the United States could be concerning if Ripple is the primary focus.

This conflict between Ripple Labs and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is of such significance in the cryptocurrency community that numerous individuals are apprehensive about the regulations imposed by the U.S. government on its digital assets.

The SEC’s action against Ripple and its native cryptocurrency, XRP, garnered attention, despite the fact that Fox Business Reporter Charles Gasparino was critical of other high-profile cases with Sam Bankman-Fried.

Gasparino contends that the SEC’s emphasis on Ripple may be superfluous, particularly in light of the fact that more significant players (such as Sam Bankman) are currently in the financial sector. This case has had a significant impact on the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States, surpassing Ripple and reshaping their future.

He stated in an interview that Ripple Labs and Chief Executive Officer Brad Garlinghouse believe the SEC exceeded its bounds. Their assessment is that the December 2020 lawsuit is not only an attack on Ripple but also on the cryptocurrency industry as a whole.

Garlinghouse has also expressed his dissatisfaction with the SEC, contending that the case will serve as a detrimental precedent for the entire industry. He also maintained that the SEC is incapable of regulating cryptocurrency and fails to recognize the distinction between digital assets and other assets.

The SEC’s failure to provide clear guidance on what a company operating in the cryptocurrency and affiliated industries should do in the regulations has reportedly frustrated Ripple.

Ripple won a partial victory in the 2023 court judgement, as it determined that XRP sold on secondary markets cannot be classified as a security. The judgement is a significant victory for Ripple, as it distinguishes XRP from other conventional securities transactions.

Nevertheless, the court determined that XRP’s direct sales to institutional investors are securities transactions, which underscores the unique nature of XRP and the intricacy of the case.

An argument has been made that digital assets, such as XRP, should be regarded in the same manner as the actual securities they contain, with the general justification of safeguarding investors from deception. At that time, Gary Gensler served as the chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Gensler is of the opinion that the crypto marketplace should adhere to securities laws. To him, it is the responsibility of XRP, among other entities, to adhere to securities laws in order to safeguard investors.

In reality, Gensler’s statements from 2021 refer to Bitcoin and Ethereum as commodities, while numerous other tokens and cryptocurrencies are likely classified as securities and therefore subject to regulatory oversight.

The SEC has determined that Ripple sales of XRP should be classified as securities, regardless of whether they are institutional or retail sales. Consequently, these transactions are subject to the same sales regulations as those that govern stocks and bonds.

Given this, the primary topic of discussion is the regulation of cryptocurrency by the United States government. Critics have identified the SEC’s strong approach to Ripple.

Also Read: Brazil will ban individual stablecoin transactions to increase KYC