- The ongoing Ripple lawsuit has seen significant developments, particularly with Judge Torres’ ruling that XRP is not a security.
- This decision has potential implications for the FIT 21 bill, which aims to provide regulatory clarity for digital assets.
- Bill Morgan, a pro-XRP lawyer, has highlighted the alignment between Judge Torres’ ruling and the provisions of the FIT 21 bill.
Judge Torres’ ruling that XRP is not a security could have significant implications for the FIT 21 bill and the broader regulatory landscape for digital assets.
Judge Torres’ Ruling and Its Impact on FIT 21
The FIT 21 bill has gained traction in the crypto community as a potential framework to provide regulatory clarity for digital assets. The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on this landmark bipartisan crypto bill, marking a significant step towards establishing a clear regulatory environment for digital assets.
However, amid this, pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan highlighted Judge Torres’ influence on the bill, particularly her ruling that XRP is not inherently a security. The XRP lawyer shared an image on the X platform, stating, “The Torres influence on FIT21. XRP is not itself a security.”
The image outlined a crucial section of the bill: “A digital asset sold or transferred pursuant to an investment contract is not and does not become a security as a result of being sold or otherwise transferred pursuant to that investment contract.”
Ripple Lawsuit: Legal Strategy and Community Support
The Ripple community, including legal experts and advocates, has been instrumental in pushing for crypto regulation and clarity over it. CryptoLaw, founded by Deaton Law Firm, credited the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit and the relentless efforts of the XRP community in influencing the creation of the FIT 21 bill.
For context, a recent report from CryptoLaw highlighted that Judge Torres’ decision and the persistent advocacy for clarity from the XRP community were crucial in drafting the bill’s provisions. Specifically, the section clarifying the treatment of digital assets sold pursuant to an investment contract reflects the legal arguments and conclusions from the Ripple case.
Meanwhile, in another post, the XRP lawyer addressed concerns about the FIT 21 bill, emphasizing its non-retrospective nature. Morgan clarified that the court’s decision, which found XRP is not a security, remains unchallenged by the SEC and will not be affected by the new legislation.
Notably, his comments came in response to a post stating that under FIT 21, XRP would not be considered decentralized. Morgan’s insights underscore that the bill, recently passed by the US House, will not alter the court’s existing rulings regarding XRP’s legal status.
Conclusion
The ongoing Ripple lawsuit and Judge Torres’ ruling that XRP is not a security have significant implications for the FIT 21 bill and the broader regulatory landscape for digital assets. The alignment between the court’s decision and the bill’s provisions highlights the importance of clear and consistent regulatory frameworks. As the crypto community continues to advocate for clarity and fairness, the developments in the Ripple case will likely play a crucial role in shaping the future of digital asset regulation.
