Ripple v. SEC Lawsuit Update October 8th

TL;DR

• The SEC appealed Judge Torres’s recent ruling, causing a sharp drop in the asset’s price.
• The XRP community launched a petition against the SEC’s contend, but it lacks the legal power to stop the ongoing legal process.

The XRP Community is Not Pleased

The nearly four-year-old legal battle between Ripple and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has seen numerous updates in the past few months. A key development was Judge Torres’s ruling in August, which determined that the sales of XRP on secondary markets to retail investors did not constitute securities transactions. However, she  ordered Ripple to pay $125 million for violating certain securities laws.

The firm seemed satisfied with the decision, considering that the penalty represented a 94% reduction from the SEC’s initial request for $2 billion. That’s why many thought the Commission would appeal and, surely enough, it did . 

The news was followed by a sharp price decline for the token and dissent from the community. The XRP Army even created a petition called “Stop the SEC’s Unnecessary and Frivolous Appeal in the Ripple v. SEC Case.” The main purpose of the effort is “voices to be heard.” 

“The plea here is straightforward – stop the SEC’s baseless appeal in the Ripple v. SEC final judgment. The ramifications of this case extend beyond just Ripple and its stakeholders. It’s a matter of principle that goes to the very foundations of digital currency regulations.

We must protect the interest of all digital currency enthusiasts worldwide inspired by the prospects of a decentralized financial future,” the petition reads.

As of the moment, over 8,300 people have signed it, with 569 individuals joining the effort in the past 24 hours. The total goal is to reach 10,000 signatures.

Can the Petition Stop the Appeal?

It is worth noting that the legal process operates independently from public opinions and petitions. As such, the community’s initiative does not have the legal power to directly intervene or halt judicial proceedings.

On the other hand, it can raise awareness and trigger additional attention to the process.