EDIT: oh funny ... Reuters edited their title and removed "partial" :-)
This is explained in the article. It was good day for this crypto scam, but it wasn't all good news for them:
> The ruling was also a partial victory for the SEC. The judge held that Ripple violated federal securities law by selling XRP directly to sophisticated investors, and that a trial should be held over its executives' role in those sales.
Also:
> Hate it or love it, but the SEC is simply going to lose all their other lawsuits
Quite a bold statement there, based on a single ruling...
And a ruling on ripple, which from architectural standpoint is rather stretching the bounds of what is typically thought of as a cryptocurrency -it isnt mined or staked and the blockchain is even more of a pretend decentralization gimmick than the rest of the tokens out there. it's much more like corporate scrip controlled by a handful of bank-owned validator supernodes. In terms of ownership structure it's what Bitcoin would drift into over time if the lightning network actually becomes the predominant means of interacting with it.
Similarly, a judge in one circuit may look to the decision of a different circuit court when their own circuit has yet to rule on an issue.
I double dare the SEC to appeal
The commission might not exist the very next day and that would be hilarious, they’ll take it back to the New Deal itself and wonder why the SEC survived when so many other New Deal programs got overturned
It would probably have been a bigger win for Ripple had they gotten out of that one.
just because they might not have filed a Reg D notice for their SAFE doesnt mean the whole transaction is invalid
Forgive me, I know little about crypto, and am bearish on it, but:
My understanding is that Ripple was very much meant to be a currency/commodity, unambiguously, where most other crypto backed by whitepapers were meant to be securities on the basis that they were meant to back some hare-brained scheme or have some utility beyond simply being a means of transfer. If I'm right about that, then surely Ripple has one of the strongest arguments for not being a security?
Forgive me, how can you form a bearish opinion on something you know very little about?
Many people get that far in their thinking, realise cryptocurrency is a bad investment, and leave it there.
As a matter of fact, every scarce asset with steady demand would argue otherwise.