Brad Garlinghouse claims that SEC is using Ripple's transparent practices against the firm.
Ripple's CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, has publicly voiced his dissatisfaction with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of Ripple's XRP Markets Report as evidence in an ongoing legal battle.
Ripple has long been known for its transparency in the cryptocurrency space, as seen through their voluntary XRP Markets Reports. These reports shed light on Ripple's holdings and clarify the company's operations.
Did you know?
Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?
Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!
What is IOTA's Tangle? IOTA & mIOTA Animated Explainer
In a recent Q2 2023 report, significant attention was paid to various key aspects, including Judge Torres' summary judgment ruling and the increase of Ripple's XRP holdings by 45 million.
The report also highlighted that the total XRP on ledger escrow had decreased by nearly 1 billion, a trend attributable to the rising demand for XRP. However, the company's goodwill in offering these insights is now being challenged, as the SEC has utilized these same reports in their case against Ripple.
In addition to Garlinghouse's criticisms, XRP lawyer John Deaton vehemently disapproved of the SEC's utilization of these reports in the lawsuit. Deaton contrasted Ripple's willingness to publish these reports with other firms that conceal or even deliberately disguise token sales.
The sentiments of both Garlinghouse and Deaton reveal a shared concern that Ripple's transparent practices are being twisted to the company's disadvantage.
Ripple secured quite an important win on July 13th, with Judge Torres ruling that XRP is not a security. The company acknowledged this significant development but emphasized that while all XRP sales are not securities, some sales under written contracts might still fall under that classification.
The unfolding saga between Ripple and the SEC underscores the nuanced and often fraught relationship between cryptocurrency firms and regulatory bodies. Ripple's commitment to transparency appears to have backfired in this instance, raising questions about how openness might be balanced with legal protection.
