Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
CryptoLaw founder John Deaton has taken to Twitter to dispel an erroneous idea voiced by some that XRP holders acquired their tokens because of Ripple. Deaton says he knows for a fact that the majority of XRP purchasers were completely unaware of the company Ripple when acquiring XRP for the first time.
For several years, I’ve heard some people say #XRPHolders only acquired #XRP b/c of @Ripple. I know for a fact, that the majority of purchasers of #XRP were completely unaware of the Company Ripple when acquiring #XRP for the 1st time. I explained, its about the tech, not Ripple. https://t.co/pX24v0fdeU
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) April 12, 2023
He adds that the ongoing legal battle was targeted toward crypto technology — not Ripple specifically.
Deaton has often mentioned the fact that an underlying token itself is nothing more than software code, no matter how it is packaged, marketed, offered and sold.
In recent tweets, Jeremy Hogan, an attorney at Hogan and Hogan, has highlighted the battle between the SEC and crypto. He thinks that Ripple will prevail in its SEC litigation if the judge who rules (or her law clerk) is familiar with cryptocurrency technology. He claims that because there is no single "owner" of the "network," cryptocurrency is decentralized, and it is therefore reasonable for someone to buy XRP as an investment without having a contract with anyone.
Hogan made a strong case for why XRP is not a security in tweets over the weekend. Hogan explains that XRP can only "possibly" fall under the legal definition of a security's "investment contract" in light of that definition.
Hogan's basic claim is that the SEC has not made an argument that an inferred or explicit investment contract existed.
There is no requirement for Ripple to perform any action other than the transfer of the asset; it is still merely an investment, similar to purchasing an ounce of gold, Hogan said. He continues by saying that as there was no such contract in the instance of Ripple, thus, XRP cannot be categorized as a security.
In recent updates in the ongoing lawsuit, the SEC has filed additional support for its pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
Denys Serhiichuk
Gamza Khanzadaev
Godfrey Benjamin
