Ripple Faces Existential Threat from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission

In late December of 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, creator of the XRP cryptocurrency. Naming the current and former CEOs, Brad Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen respectively, as the perpetrators of an illegal sales of unregistered securities. Garlinghouse reiterated his belief that XRP is a currency, and made clear his intentions to challenge the accusations in court. The outcome of said case could have far-reaching repercussions for the industry as a whole.

The concept of cryptocurrency occupies a strange space within the legal framework of the United States. While most proponents consider it a new investment class, cryptocurrency depends on certain criteria to avoid legislative pitfalls. Bitcoin largely avoided scrutiny because it lacks centralized governance. It operates as more of a natural resource than a business. Ethereum, the number two cryptocurrency, can also make strong claims against classification as a security. While certainly traded like an asset, the Ethereum blockchain clearly serves as a framework for smart contract-based applications.

In contrast, Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency stands on shakier ground. The available suite of enterprise solutions — xRapid, xCurrent and xWave — offer varying means of liquidity and payment processing. At the heart of each system lay XRP itself, operating as a gateway between various fiat currencies. On its own, this system may have avoided classification as a security — however, XRP remains widely available outside of the Ripple ecosystem. Traders freely hold XRP as a means of investing in Ripple’s success, a sure sign of a security.

The Laws Pertaining to Securities

Constant ambiguity and sporadic enforcement allowed Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) and security tokens to propagate — Ripple included. Questions remain as to whether cryptocurrency is a ‘Pandora’s Box’ or something that the SEC could conceivably reign in over time. The charges filed against Ripple Labs may be the opening shots of a concentrated war against unregulated cryptocurrencies.

The SEC wields less influence over cryptocurrency when compared against traditional stocks and assets. The United States slow response to the emergence of blockchain technology allowed trade to flourish in other countries. Ripple’s attempts to provide a more ‘mainstream’ offering opened them to potential litigation from the US government. Their much-maligned centralization may trigger their downfall, giving the SEC an easy target — when compared against the more resilient nature of a decentralized network.

Photo by Worldspectrum from Pexels

What Makes Ripple Susceptible?

However, it also removes any shield of autonomy from Ripple and the XRP blockchain. Ripple’s liquidity pool provides a useful, needed service to update legacy banking software. If Ripple held XRP solely for this purpose, the SEC would have little reason to come after them. The distribution and holding of XRP for private investment greatly muddles that argument. As with any cryptocurrency, speculation runs rampant — occasionally propelling XRP above Ethereum to the second ranked cryptocurrency by market capitalization.

Other SEC Enforcement Efforts

Privacy-focused communications firm Telegram famously raised nearly $2 billion USD in their own ICO. However, unlike block.one and EOS, the SEC actively sought to prevent Telegram from issuing their ‘Gram’ cryptocurrency. The SEC’s action resulted in Telegram returning the majority of their funds to investors — as well as an $18.5 million USD penalty.

Both cases pertain to a fraudulently operated ICO. Unlike Ripple’s current situation, the SEC went after block.one and Telegram almost immediately. Ripple and the XRP blockchain have operated for years under their current system, something that could result in a drastically larger penalty — if the SEC allowed them to continue operating within the United States at all.

The Fate of Ripple

If Ripple manages to fend off the SEC’s assertions, they will emerge with an anemic business infrastructure. Repairing the damage done could take years, and will leave XRP in a temporarily weaker position. Long term, it would represent a much stronger foundation for their business. If Ripple Labs can prove in court that they are not an unregistered security, they would no longer suffer from legislative ambiguity.

Should the SEC win in their case, the results would be catastrophic for both Ripple and the cryptocurrency industry. Most — if not all — of the centralize cryptocurrency operators would face the same threat, with a now-established precedent. The best-case scenario, should the SEC win, would be a hefty fine and operational restrictions for Ripple. The worst case would be full dissolution. In all likelihood, Ripple will continue to exist for the foreseeable future — albeit in a starkly new dynamic.

I am a freelance technical writer in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space. Sometimes I also like to dabble in fiction or opinion pieces.