Ripple Urges SEC to Replace Case-by-Case Crypto Enforcement With Clear Rules
Ripple has submitted a comment letter backing the SEC's proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, urging a rules-based framework over case-by-case enforcement. The company says its legal costs in the XRP litigation exceeded $150 million, and the push comes as the CLARITY Act has stalled in the Senate.
Written by CoinArticle’s AI Newsroom · from 2 cited sources. How we work
What Ripple Asked the SEC For
Ripple has sent the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a comment letter supporting the agency's proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, according to Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty, who announced the filing on Wednesday. The company is asking the SEC to stop relying on case-by-case enforcement and to set out clear requirements under existing securities laws. A separate account of Ripple's submission describes a related request for clarity on the treatment of payment stablecoins and tokenized securities, following a meeting Ripple held with the Commission's Crypto Task Force. The two accounts describe the same general push for rulemaking, though the stablecoin and tokenization questions are not part of the enforcement-focused framing in the other report.
The central legal argument in the filing is that the investment contract, not the token itself, is the security. Alderoty wrote that regulators should focus on what an issuer promised investors and when those obligations end, rather than applying a subjective decentralization test. Alderoty framed the filing as a response to "years of 'case by case, coin by coin' enforcement," writing on X that "We need holistic rules for digital assets."
The XRP Litigation Behind the Filing
Ripple's position is shaped by its dispute with the SEC, which began in December 2020 when the regulator alleged an unregistered securities offering through XRP sales. In July 2023, a federal court found that Ripple's programmatic sales to retail buyers on exchanges did not constitute investment contracts under the circumstances examined, but that certain institutional sales violated registration requirements. The parties reached a settlement in 2025.
Ripple says the case cost it more than $150 million in legal expenses, and Alderoty wrote that "No company should have to do that to learn what the law requires." CEO Brad Garlinghouse has made a similar argument, saying Ripple had obtained legal certainty for XRP through the courts even as the broader industry still lacks clear rules.
Congressional Stalemate and the SEC's Proposal
The filing comes as legislative progress has weakened. The CLARITY Act, which would define the regulatory responsibilities of the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, failed a Senate procedural vote on September 15 with 49 votes in favor and 50 against, short of the 60 needed to advance to floor debate. Disagreements over ethics provisions involving President Donald Trump and his family's cryptocurrency interests contributed to the impasse. The bill has not been permanently abandoned, but its near-term prospects have diminished.
The SEC is pursuing its own path. Proposed in August, Regulation Crypto Assets would create tailored exemptions for certain crypto-related investment contracts and a conditional safe harbor for assets that meet specified requirements. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has presented the proposal as a way to give crypto businesses clearer pathways while maintaining investor protections. Garlinghouse said on October 15, on "The Starting Block" podcast, that regulatory progress can continue through agency action despite the legislative impasse.
Why It Matters
For Traders
Any near-term SEC rulemaking on Regulation Crypto Assets could shift expectations for XRP and other tokens, but the proposal is still open for comment and no final rule has been adopted.
For Investors
With the CLARITY Act stalled, agency rulemaking is becoming the main channel for U.S. crypto regulatory clarity, which raises the importance of the SEC's final framework.
For Builders
If the SEC adopts the proposed safe harbor and investment-contract exemptions, issuers may need to document what they promised investors and when those obligations end.
This article is for information only and is not financial advice. Read the full disclaimer.
