In a recent tweet shared by the Ripple General Counsel, Stuart Alderoty reacted to the SEC’s claim filed against Ripple for defying its authority.
Stuart said; “Even if true, this only shows that the SEC’s unelected bureaucrats believe they have unchecked power to issue indiscriminate closed-door edicts under pain of punishment to those who don’t blindly obey,” Alderoty further wrote. “We have crossed from regulation by enforcement to hubris most foul.”
Read Also: Terra Classic Releases Proposal 11243 To Get LUNC Gas Fees Increased. Is It A Plus?
SEC’s Claim Prompts Ripple Counsel’s Response
The statement by Ripple’s counsel came as a result of the FOX Business’ Charles Gasparino, who claimed that in the course of his reporting, he believes the SEC sued Ripple for “flouting” its authority. According to Gasparino, Ripple continued to sell XRP despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice from the regulator. The senior correspondent bolstered his claim by asserting that the Ethereum Foundation possibly made only one sale and did not receive a lawsuit.
Read Also: Santiment Declares XRP As The Crypto Pick For January. Here’s Why
It is worth noting that FOX Business’s report hasn’t prompted the Alderoty only but some other prominent figures in Ripple also took out time to say something in response to the claims. For instance, Attorney John Deaton, who represents XRP holders as a friend of the court in the legal battle, noted that the claim of Ripple flouting the SEC’s authority did not justify the unnecessarily broad claims that hurt the very consumers the regulator is sworn to protect.
Over time, there has been a chain of arguments between Ripple and the SEC. For instance, SEC once accused Ripple and its executives of engaging in the offer and sale of an unregistered security, XRP. Notably, it kicked off a lengthy legal battle that has endured to date.
On the same premise, Deaton has argued that the SEC’s claims are unprecedented in securities law in a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in January 2021.
According to the attorney, it goes against previous guidance as the underlying asset packaged as a security by an investment contract has never been termed a security. That is to say, even if Ripple did offer and sell a security, XRP alone could not be termed a security.