Ripple supports the SEC's cryptocurrency regulations and opposes the stress test
On the final day of the comment period, Ripple submitted a 20-page comment letter, supporting the SEC's proposed Crypto Asset Regulation and requesting four specific changes.
10/22/20263 min read
Things Ripple is advocating
The company supports the proposal's exemption structure, meaning a pathway that would allow eligible startups to raise up to $5 million over four years and up to $75 million within twelve months, subject to additional disclosures. Both of these exemptions are currently inactive. The company also supports a separable safety clause, establishing a process for determining when a token is no longer bound by an investment contract, and an accompanying rule that the investment contract terminates when the issuer has completed or permanently abandoned the essential governance efforts they promised.
That final point is the core theory behind every argument Ripple has made since 2020. Howey's analysis questions whether investors expect profits from someone else's endeavors, and Ripple's position has consistently been that the endeavors involved are those genuinely committed to by the issuer, and the contract ends when those commitments cease. The proposed rule applies that reasoning. A company that spent six years and $150 million litigating a theory now finds that theory incorporated into a proposed regulation, which explains the letter's pro-Rule stance more than any strategic calculation.
Important objection
Ripple opposes making decentralization a separate legal criterion, and this is a crucial part of the letter, because decentralization has been the industry's preferred escape route for years. The argument is that decentralization allows for some potentially protectable measures, such as node distribution, token centralization, governance participation, and development activity, but none reliably demonstrate whether the issuer's initial commitments remain valid. A token can be considered technically decentralized while the issuer continues to make and fulfill promises to holders, and a token can be considered centralized while the issuer has effectively abandoned it.
Ripple's alternative is to examine what the issuer has explicitly promised and whether those promises have been fulfilled. It's a narrower and more manageable criterion, and it's no coincidence that Ripple can meet it. But the criticism remains valid regardless of who makes it. A decentralization threshold would create an immediate incentive to create the appearance of decentralization, and disputes over the measure would precisely replicate the adjudication of each case that this rule aims to terminate.
Three Technical Requirements
The remaining requirements relate to the operational mechanism, and this mechanism determines the success or failure of the regulations. Ripple wants certainty in the TR Form so that exchanges and brokers can rely on a properly filed form instead of analyzing on their own whether an asset qualifies—the difference between a regulation that creates a listing and one that creates a legal memorandum. They want separate cryptocurrency assets to be treated consistently across four federal laws instead of two, as it's unclear whether an asset falls outside the definition of a security for one purpose and within it for another. And they want Rule 500 to specify whether ordinary secondary market transactions count as part of the issuer's initial agreement, a question that determines whether any exchange transactions are related to the issuance.
Arguments on Sustainability
The letter's concluding theme is that formal regulation is more sustainable than interpretation, because interpretations can be reversed by the next Commission. This is the same tension that has played out throughout the year of administrative replacement, with the CLARITY Act failing to reach a consensus on September 15 and Chairman Atkins stating that the agency would proceed with or without legislation. Ripple is making the strongest possible argument for the administrative path, that a regulation passed through notification and consultation is more difficult to overturn than a policy statement.
However, this is also a weaker path in a respect the letter doesn't address. A regulation enacted without a legal basis is easily challenged within a post-Loper Bright framework, where courts no longer respect their own interpretation of jurisdiction. The regulation on cryptocurrency assets relies on the SEC's power to define and exempt, and the industry benefiting from it would have little incentive to challenge, but an adversely affected party would, and the same doctrinal shift currently driving the ICBA's case against the OCC could also apply here. A regulation is ultimately better off being a gamble in enforcement. It's not like a law, and the letters of comment supporting it are quieter about that than they should be.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is for informational, research, data analysis, and reference purposes only regarding the cryptocurrency market. All opinions, assessments, forecasts, or opinions reflect the author's perspective at the time of publication and do not constitute investment advice, solicitations for buying or selling, trading recommendations, advertising, marketing, or promotion of any financial products, services, or cryptocurrencies. Mentions of projects, tokens, protocols, exchanges, wallets, or cryptocurrency service providers (CASPs) are for research, analysis, or informational purposes only and should not be construed as endorsements, recommendations, or guarantees in any way. HCCVenture does not broker, advertise, market, promote, or connect users in Vietnam with any cryptocurrency services from CASPs. HCCVenture does not accept asset custody, investment mandates, manage assets, or execute transactions on behalf of clients. All investment decisions are made entirely through the reader's own research (DYOR), evaluation, and responsibility; HCCVenture is not liable for any losses or damages arising from the use of or reliance on the information presented in this article.
Compiled and analyzed by HCCVenture
Join our information channels: https://link3.to/holdcoincventure
Explore HCCVenture group
HCCVENTURE QUANT JSCO
© 2026 HCCVENTURE. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED.
Connect with us
Popular content
Contact to us
Address: 8th Floor, Bach Dang Complex Building, 50 Bach Dang Street, Hai Chau Ward, Da Nang City, Vietnam.
Phone: 1900 1509
Gmail : sp_contact@hccventure.com
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. We are not responsible for any risks or losses arising from investment decisions based on the content here.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS • CUSTOMER PROTECTION POLICY
ANALYTICAL AND NEWS CONTENT IS COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF DIGITAL FINANCE AND BLOCKCHAIN BELONGING TO HCCVENTURE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING OWNERSHIP OF THE CONTENT.
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING ALL CONTENT AND ANALYSIS: HCCVENTURE FOUNDER - TRUONG MINH HUY
Read warnings about scams and phishing emails — REPORT A PROBLEM WITH OUR SITE.
