XRP Cannot Pass as A Security, Says Ripple’s CEO
The classification of XRP has presented various issues, bringing about the class action suit employed in determining the digital asset category. Ripple’s CEO, Brad Gradlinghouse, recently confirmed the story, sharing his concerns on the matter. He went on to guarantee that XRP cannot be under the classification of asset security. The primary reason for this followed the lawsuit initially filed against the firm due to its involvement in selling unregistered tokens in 2018. As a result, the Ripple firm’s motion filed in December 2019 requested the case to be crushed based on inadequate legal merit.
Filed Motion by Ripple
Based on the lawsuit dismissal’s motion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California keenly assessed and took the motion under submission. The ruling announcement was to be on the 15th of January, although signs point to more time taken in providing a final judgment.
Garlinghouse’s Comments on XRP
In recent times, Garlinghouse shared his reviews with CNBC, claiming his insight into not involving XRP as asset security. Following his study, he excluded the Ripple firm from responsibilities related to the XRP security issues. He further went into specific reasons why the asset shouldn’t be classified as a security. Following the tweet by Digital Assets Daily, the posted review clearly stated Brad Gradlinghouse’s claims in his own words, “I think it’s very clear that XRP is not a security….”
The major point he tried to drive home was a significant difference between the coin and the Ripple firm; the two are vastly different entities. The primary idea related to this claim was that XRP would still be there even if the Ripple firm seized to exist. His words were that “It’s an independent open-source technology.”
He further said that the XRP is not significantly related to the Ripple company. In that case, owning XRP does not mean that the holder is given any equity in the Ripple firm. Gradlinghouse suggested that XRP did not have enough support to be considered as asset security. However, he could not clearly state the reasons why he disregarded the coin as an asset. He further said that if the considerations were reversed, the official ruling would result in a panic sale that eventually would lead to plummeting prices.