The SEC has explained the difference between XRP and Bitcoin to the judge, said that XRP cannot be compared to BTC
Continuing Ripple’s latest developments in the SEC lawsuit, XRP is once again asserting itself as a security because of its economic nature, and Bitcoin or Ethereum is no different.
SEC tells Judge that XRP is not like Bitcoin or Ethereum
Earlier this week, lawyers representing Ripple, CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and co-founder Chris Larsen asked Judge Analisa Torres to force the SEC to release documents on Bitcoin and Ethereum. Because according to them, Bitcoin and Ethereum are both considered non-securities assets, and XRP should be treated the same way. Furthermore, Ripple claims that by the economic nature of XRP, XRP’s transactions are no different from BTC and ETH.
And as a response to that response, during the March 19 hearing, Commission trial attorney Jorge Tenreiro stated to Judge Sarah Netburn that XRP cannot be compared to Bitcoin or Ethereum.
During the hearing, the SEC stated that documents relating to two of the largest crypto assets in the world were unrelated to the incident. Moreover, according to the commission Ripple is not like Bitcoin because the company is one entity that has created these assets. That is fundamentally different.
The federal agency even questioned the utility of XRP during the hearing and said:
“We dispute whether this utility actually exists, your honor. But the point is: even if it did exist, Ripple and the defendants’ efforts to develop a use for XRP is what makes XRP security.”
During Ripple’s presentation, legal advisor Mathew Solomon, Judge Netburn asked if there is a utility that distinguishes XRP from two other crypto assets:
“It might not be relevant to the issue, but it’s important to understand. My understanding of XRP is that not only does it have a currency value but it also has a utility and that utility distinguishes it, I think, from Bitcoin and Ether. Is that correct?”
Several banks whose customers are Garlinghouse and Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen have been served subpoenas by the SEC, but the defendant moved to quash them. Tenreiro explains that every sale of XRP by the executives constitutes a Section 5 violation, which is why they need to know the whole scope of sales.
When asked by the judge, he clarified that it didn’t concern every individual who’s selling the token:
“Fundamentally, the SEC needs to be able to establish all of the sales that occurred. It’s not required to take their word for it.”
The SEC attorney also revealed that the agency had developed evidence that Garlinghouse managed to camouflage some of his XRP sales:
“We’ve also developed evidence that…Ripple, Garlinghouse, and another entity that they used to sell XRP intermingled their XRP sales to one of the market makers.”
The SEC’s legal representative asserted that the SEC needs to be aware of all purchases that have occurred and are not obligated to obey Ripple. At the same time, the agency claims that it has developed evidence that Ripple, Garlinghouse, and another entity once sold XRP and alternated their XRP sale to one of the market makers.
You can see the XRP price here.
Read more:
- Whether Ripple Executives Live Off Their XRP Sales? Let’s See!
- Ripple Has Appointed A Former Uber Executive To Lead Its Expansion Into The Southeast Asia Region