News 
Coin Information 
About us 
Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple Labs, didn't mince words in a publicized condemnation of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). His critiques followed a series of comments from SEC lawyers suggesting they might review a recent split-decision case against Ripple Labs.
Garlinghouse took to Twitter on July 23, passionately denouncing the SEC's "regulation by enforcement" strategy. He contended that such a method has not benefitted but instead disadvantaged retail investors, particularly those engaged in the rapidly evolving crypto market.
He accused the regulatory body of leaving consumers to grapple with bankruptcy while they (SEC) proudly host press briefings. The Ripple executive's reproof was prompted by the SEC's most recent statements about Ripple Labs. This discourse hinted at the possibility of appealing the contested ruling against the crypto firm.
Earlier on July 21, the SEC had voiced its apprehensions during an ongoing case against Terraform Labs' founder, Do Kwon. The regulatory body expressed concerns over the decision that XRP's retail sales on exchanges did not qualify as a security under legal terms.
SEC lawyers candidly stated their belief that the parts of the Ripple ruling were wrongly decided, arguing that XRP's sales should have been considered securities. The regulatory body stated its intentions to explore other options for a more comprehensive review of the case.
In response to these assertions, Garlinghouse called the blame placed on the judge “absurd,” emphasizing that the judge merely interpreted and applied existing laws.
Clear legislation, not increased regulatory enforcement, should be the path forward to protect retail investors and provide definitive rules, according to Garlinghouse.
Ripple Labs' Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, also had some choice words on the matter. Meanwhile, on July 17, SEC Chair Gary Gensler expressed dissatisfaction over the court's decision on XRP's security status, pledging the regulatory body's continued assessment of this verdict.
Comment 0