#Ripple beats #SEC and #XRP is not a value. But what is it? What rules do you follow? What happens if it fails? Who protects users?
Ripple has managed to triumph over accusations by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it is an unregistered security. This victory not only benefits XRP, but the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem as it sets a precedent for greater regulatory clarity and greater innovation.
XRP is a different cryptocurrency from others like Bitcoin or Ethereum, since it is not based on a decentralized network of miners, but on a system of validators that verify transactions. This allows it to be faster, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than its competitors. Additionally, XRP is backed by Ripple, a company that offers blockchain-based cross-border payment solutions to banks and other financial institutions.
It is sometimes said that cryptocurrencies can be arranged on a spectrum according to their degree of decentralization, with Bitcoin being the most decentralized and XRP being the most centralized. This is because XRP is heavily dependent on Ripple, a company that has notable influence over the network, supply, and price of the coin.
Some might think this is a disadvantage, as it goes against the original spirit of cryptocurrencies, which sought to free themselves from the control of central authorities. Others might see it as an advantage, as it implies greater security, efficiency and professionalism.
Many assume that the SEC has acted arbitrarily and contradictorily in suing Ripple and its executives for selling XRP without registering it as a security, as it had previously declared that #Bitcoin and Ethereum were not. In fact, it could be noted that this lawsuit has caused great damage to the XRP market, causing the suspension of its trading on several platforms and the loss of investor confidence.
However, XRP managed to successfully defend itself in court, obtaining several favorable rulings that have weakened the SEC's arguments and strengthened the rights of the defendants. This is good news for the entire cryptocurrency sector, as it shows that the SEC does not have the final say on the nature and scope of cryptocurrencies, and that there is room for dialogue and collaboration between interested parties.
Within the crypto community, it is not uncommon for Ripple to be viewed poorly due to its high degree of centralization. Personally, I have nothing against centralized projects. However, for fans of decentralization, Ripple is like the cousin we dislike. The one who is always late to family gatherings, the one who thinks he is better than everyone else, the one who makes us feel uncomfortable with his comments.
But it turns out that that cousin we dislike was in trouble. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported him for selling unregistered securities. And now, that cousin we dislike has reminded us that, despite our differences, we are family. And that, apparently, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Because the SEC by losing the case against Ripple set a beneficial precedent for the rest of the cryptocurrencies. So, although it pains us to admit it, we have to support our unloved cousin. Because at the end of the day, we are all crypto.
Now let's play devil's advocate and see the other side of the rant. Well, there are some arguments that might make you think twice about company-created cryptocurrencies. For example, did you know that Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, has millions of BTC in his addresses? These BTC were not given to him, but rather obtained by mining. That is, he invested his time and energy in creating them. On the other hand, if a company creates a cryptocurrency, keeps a good portion of it, then sells it and uses the money to finance its growth, isn't that a lot like issuing a security without registering it? Isn't that illegal? Well, maybe not so much. Because Ripple has managed to triumph over the accusations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a lawsuit.
Why must a value be registered? And why does the SEC care so much about that? Well, because not everything is for companies. Investors who put their money into a security also have rights. And the SEC is there to protect them. For example, when a company decides to go public, it has to comply with a series of rules and requirements. You have to report your accounts, your plans, your risks... You have to be transparent and honest. But when a company issues a cryptocurrency, it doesn't have to do any of that. You can do whatever you want with investors' money, without giving them any guarantees or explanations.
As we know, this industry hates the State more than anyone. He doesn't want anyone to interfere in his affairs, not even the SEC, which is the body that regulates the stock markets in the United States. And what does the SEC do? Well, nothing more and nothing less than protecting users from possible fraud, scams or manipulations. But of course, the crypto industry doesn't like that, because they prefer to do whatever they want without being accountable to anyone. So when the SEC says that XRP, one of the most popular cryptocurrencies, is a security and not a currency, all hell breaks loose.
Well, we already know that XRP is not a security. But what is XRP then? What standards must the company that issues it comply with? None? That would be very risky, because if something goes wrong, as has happened with other cases such as Terra/Luna, FTX, Celsius and others, users are the first to request the intervention of the authorities to recover their money. But if there is no regulation, there is no guarantee.
Have you realized that in this industry companies rule and users obey? Yes that's how it is. Companies that create, sell or promote cryptocurrencies have the power to influence public opinion, and users are swayed by what they say. And what they say? Well, you don't have to trust the State, nor the laws, nor the institutions. That the best thing is to let the market regulate itself, and let everyone manage as they can. And what about user rights? Well, they don't exist. Or, rather, that they do not defend themselves. Because the libertarian ideology that permeates this industry prevents users from organizing to claim what is theirs. And so, companies take advantage of their dominant position, and promote their interests much more than those of users. Here he left this for reflection.
