Ripple Price Forecast: XRP rally faces uncertainty after Court denies SEC-Ripple joint motion

By: fxstreet|2025/05/16 13:00:12
0
Share
copy
Judge Analisa Torres denies the SEC and Ripple’s joint request for an indicative ruling to dissolve the $125M penalty injunction. Judge Torres cited procedural issues, emphasising the need for a compelling case to justify withdrawing her ruling. XRP’s price shows strength, rising slightly above support at $2.40, although its upside potential remains uncertain. Ripple (XRP) price trades broadly sideways at around $2.41 on Friday, rising slightly after a minor correction from this week’s peak of $2.65 to support $2.34. This comes after United States (US) District Judge Analisa Torres rejected Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) joint request for an indicative ruling. The parties had reached a settlement agreement last week, pending judicial approval. SEC-Ripple joint request for an indicative ruling denied Judge Analisa Torres of the US District Court Southern District of New York has rejected a joint request by Ripple and the SEC for an indicative ruling that would have seen the token issuer pay only $50 million as a penalty instead of the $125 million imposed by the Court in 2024. #XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Judge Torres has denied the parties’ motion for an indicative ruling. “If jurisdiction were restored to this Court, the Court would deny the parties’ motion as procedurally improper.” pic.twitter.com/4s95ILvzsy The lawsuit filed by the SEC in December 2020 alleged that Ripple “engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act.” According to the July 12, 2023 ruling, “the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ demand for summary judgment.” Judge Torres ruled that the sale of XRP on the open market or cryptocurrency exchanges did not constitute a security. However, Ripple had a case to answer for its direct institutional sale of XRP tokens. Ripple was penalised $125 million, significantly below the SEC’s initial request of $2 billion for violating, in part, the Securities Act. The money was deposited in an interest-bearing account, but Ripple and the SEC appealed the ruling, with the cross-appeals pending judgment before the Second Circuit. Ripple and the SEC agreed on May 8 to seek to settle the lawsuit in both the District Court and the Second Circuit. The parties mutually agreed that Ripple pays $50 million to the SEC upon the Court’s vacation of the injunction against Ripple Labs, subsequently lowering the penalty by 60%. On dismissing the joint request for indicative ruling, Judge Torres cited procedural issues, adding that the District Court must “determine whether the proposed consent decree is fair and reasonable with the additional requirement that the public interest would not be disserved in the event the court” moves to grant the motion effectively ending the lawsuit. Despite the denial, Judge Torres outlined a clear path that must be followed by the SEC and Ripple to ensure the agreement is fair and reasonable. According to crypto lawyer John Deaton, the Court must ascertain that the thousands of legal hours and judicial manpower committed to the case in the last five years did not go to waste. Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, said after the ruling that Ripple will work with the SEC to revisit the matter. Alderoty clarified that the ruling does not jeopardise Ripple’s past wins, as XRP is not a security. Nothing in today’s order changes Ripple’s wins (i.e. XRP is not a security, etc). This is about procedural concerns with the dismissal of Ripple’s cross-appeal. Ripple and the SEC are fully in agreement to resolve this case and will revisit this issue with the Court, together. https://t.co/vBQdBD3FNe XRP’s uptrend holds steady despite the ruling XRP’s price gains slightly over 1% on Friday, trading around $2.41 at the time of writing. The token’s short-term technical outlook is structurally bullish with the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) sitting above the mean line. At the same time, the MACD line (blue) gap above the signal line (red) upholds the buy signal confirmed on May 8. A buy signal manifests when the MACD line crosses above the signal line. XRP’s position above three up-trending moving averages, ranging from the 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA) at $2.27, the 100-day EMA at $2.25, to the 200-day EMA at $2.03, signals a strong bullish momentum. XRP/USDT daily chart For now, the uptrend’s target at $3.00 remains in sight, with traders likely to look for a daily close above $2.40, the immediate support. A break above the weekly peak of $2.65 would encourage traders to buy XRP, as confidence improves for a breakout to $3.00. However, XRP is not out of the woods, and extended declines toward the 200-day EMA support at $2.00 cannot be ruled out yet. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) indicator at 56.36 reflects the drawdown from $2.65 in the last few days. If headwinds overshadow demand, XRP could explore lower levels as the RSI indicator slides below the midline at 50 towards the oversold region. SEC vs Ripple lawsuit FAQs It depends on the transaction, according to a court ruling released on July 14, 2023: For institutional investors or over-the-counter sales, XRP is a security.For retail investors who bought the token via programmatic sales on exchanges, on-demand liquidity services and other platforms, XRP is not a security. The United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Ripple and its executives of raising more than $1.3 billion through an unregistered asset offering of the XRP token.While the judge ruled that programmatic sales aren’t considered securities, sales of XRP tokens to institutional investors are indeed investment contracts. In this last case, Ripple did breach the US securities law and had to pay a $125 million civil fine. The ruling offers a partial win for both Ripple and the SEC, depending on what one looks at. Ripple gets a big win over the fact that programmatic sales aren’t considered securities, and this could bode well for the broader crypto sector as most of the assets eyed by the SEC’s crackdown are handled by decentralized entities that sold their tokens mostly to retail investors via exchange platforms, experts say. Still, the ruling doesn’t help much to answer the key question of what makes a digital asset a security, so it isn’t clear yet if this lawsuit will set precedent for other open cases that affect dozens of digital assets. Topics such as which is the right degree of decentralization to avoid the “security” label or where to draw the line between institutional and programmatic sales persist. The SEC has stepped up its enforcement actions toward the blockchain and digital assets industry, filing charges against platforms such as Coinbase or Binance for allegedly violating the US Securities law. The SEC claims that the majority of crypto assets are securities and thus subject to strict regulation. While defendants can use parts of Ripple’s ruling in their favor, the SEC can also find reasons in it to keep its current strategy of regulation by enforcement.

You may also like

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

On the day of commencement, should we go long or short?

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

1. Top News: Tariff Uncertainty Returns as Bitcoin Options Market Bets on Downside Risk 2. Token Unlock: $SOSO, $NIL, $MON

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

The Essence of Agentification: Use algorithms to replicate your judgment framework, replacing labor costs with API costs.

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

The network appears to be still running, but participants are dropping off.

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

What's Been Trending with Expats in the Last 24 Hours?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us

Original Title: Against Citrini7Original Author: John Loeber, ResearcherOriginal Translation: Ismay, BlockBeats


Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.


The following is the original content:


Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.


Never Underestimate "Institutional Inertia"


In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.


When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."


Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.


A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.


I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.


The Software Industry Has "Infinite Demand" for Labor


Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.


But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.


I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.


From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.


Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.


I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.


This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.


Redemption of "Reindustrialization"


Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.


But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.


As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.


We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.


We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.


Towards Abundance


The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.


My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.


At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.


If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.


Source: Original Post Link


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more