Ripple vs. SEC: Pro-XRP Lawyer Challenges SEC, CEO Calls for Testimony
• John Deaton, the founder of CryptolawUS and pro-XRP lawyer, criticized the SEC for their “aiding and abetting” charges against Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.
• Digital Asset Investor is advocating for Lowell Ness, a past a16z attorney, and Chris Dixon to be summoned in order to reveal the SEC’s thoughts about crypto.
• Brad Garlinghouse reportedly exclaimed that they were „stuck“ due to the lack of confirmation from Clayton or Hinman that XRP was a security.
Ripple vs. SEC: Pro-XRP Lawyer Challenges SEC
John Deaton, the founder of CryptolawUS and pro-XRP lawyer, has criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for their “aiding and abetting” charges against Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse. Deaton believes that if former leaders Bill Hinman and Jay Clayton had testified earlier on this matter, it would have saved time, money, and increased crypto adoption.
The „Ethereum Free Pass“ Drama
Digital Asset Investor is calling for Lowell Ness—a past a16z attorney—and Chris Dixon to testify as well in order to shed light on what is known as the „Ethereum Free Pass Speech“. This could provide further insight into how the SEC really thinks about cryptocurrency.
Ripple’s CEO Speaks Out
In a meeting with Clayton and Joel Katz (Ripple’s CTO), Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse allegedly said they were „stuck“ due to the lack of confirmation from Clayton or Hinman that XRP was a security. John Deaton believes this moment is pivotal enough that Clayton should testify as a “fact witness”.
The Cost of Confusion
The legal battle between Ripple and the SEC has caused confusion in both markets; making investors worry about how this may affect their investments in both Ripple Labs Inc., as well as XRP tokens themselves.
The Bottom Line
It remains unclear when or if any of these figures will be called upon to provide testimony in court regarding Ripple’s case against the Securities & Exchange Commission; however it does appear likely that additional testimony may be necessary given all parties involved are seeking more clarity on key points related to this ongoing legal matter.