Three years after the decision in the SEC v. Ripple case, the discussion of the case rose again. According to John Deaton, founder of CryptoLaw, XRP holders played a practical role in the advancement of the case, especially when the court considered the attributes of the secondary market for tokens, the submissions of the community were taken into account by the judge.
Three years after the verdict.
On 13 July, the XRP Community Memorial Judge Analisa Torres delivered the third anniversary of the summary judgement. The decision found that XRP was not a security per se; Ripple ' s sale of XRP through a secondary trading platform did not constitute a securities transaction, but direct sales to institutional investors were securities transactions.
This decision has since been regarded as an important case in United States encrypted regulatory proceedings, affecting in particular the market ' s understanding of the distinction between the attributions of the tokens themselves and the manner in which they are sold.
Deaton recalls the participation of the holder
Deaton wrote on platform X that XRP holders were not just bystanders on the outer edge of the case. He submitted amicus curiae opinions on behalf of nearly 76,000 XRP holders, arguing that the XRP should not be recognized as securities, and a further submission in support of nearly 4000 statements by the holders.
He claims that Judge Torres cited his amicus curiae opinion in his judgement. While other amicus curiae documents have also been cited by the Court, this indicates at least that the holder ' s position is within the formal jurisdiction of the Court.
Nearly 4,000 statements were written in the verdict.
Deaton further noted that the judge cited the affidavit of the holder in finding that “XRP is not a security per se”. According to him, not many of the extensive evidentiary material in the case were eventually annexed to the summary judgement, of which the statement of the XRP holder was one.
He also refers to the judge ' s reference to his views in the LBRY oral presentation on the secondary market for digital assets. Deaton stated that he had expressly requested the court, in an amicus curiae opinion, to confirm that XRP was a digital code and that it was not per se to be regarded as a security, and that this was eventually echoed in the judgment.
In the light of the impact of the case, this statement once again highlights the way in which United States courts distinguish between “coin itself” and “specific sales” when dealing with cases of encrypted assets. For the XRP community, the three-year node also brought the legal significance of the proceedings to the fore.