Ripple CEO Applauds Congressional Crypto Champions

[ad_1]

Alex Dovbnya

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse criticizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for overreaching in regulating the crypto industry, following its recent decision to appeal the ruling in favor of Ripple

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse took to Twitter on July 23, expressing his stance on the ongoing saga between Ripple and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The executive criticized the SEC’s regulation of the crypto industry, saying the SEC had exceeded its legal jurisdiction, leaving consumers “holding the bag in bankruptcy court.”

This sentiment follows the SEC’s recent announcement to appeal a landmark ruling in favor of Ripple.

The executive’s anger is rooted in a legal dispute between Ripple and the SEC, which has implications for the broader crypto industry.

The SEC recently signaled its intention to appeal a US District Court ruling that sided with Ripple Labs. Judge Analisa Torres estimated that about half of Ripple’s cryptocurrency XRP sales did not violate investor protection laws. The decision provided a glimmer of hope for other defendants in similar cases against the SEC, which the regulator now intends to overturn.

Garlinghouse, however, opposed the idea of ​​scapegoating the judiciary for its law enforcement. He pointed out that clear legislation, not “more regulation by enforcement,” was the need of the hour for the crypto industry to move forward and protect retail investors.

In his following tweet, Garlinghouse praised members of Congress like Ritchie Torres and Patrick McHenry for championing this perspective.

The SEC’s appeal stems from a disagreement with Justice Torres’ decision, saying his decision “adds baseless requirements” to the test of when an asset is a security.

They argue that his position contradicts the fundamental tenet of federal investor protection law, which requires more protection for retail investors than for institutional investors.

The SEC argued that Torres’ reasoning was “impossible to reconcile” with these principles of securities law, setting the stage for the ongoing legal dispute.

[ad_2]