Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
XRP Ripple won its landmark lawsuit against the SEC, but most reports focused on the legal team, regulatory impact and implications for the entire cryptocurrency industry. A widely ignored detail: the role played by thousands of ordinary XRP holders-who publicly stood up and fought for their assets.
John Deaton, a lawyer representing XRP holders as an intervening party in the case, detailed how community contributions affect the final outcome on Platform X this week. The judge directly quoted the holder's testimony.
Deaton's argument is not groundless. When Judge Analisa Torres ruled in the final summary judgment that "XRP itself is not a securities", she specifically cited nearly 4000 affidavits filed by Deaton from XRP holders.
Of the thousands of pieces of evidence submitted throughout the proceedings, Torres cited only a few dozen in his final judgment. The holder's affidavit is among them. The difference is significant-it is not standard procedure for judges to cite community affidavits in landmark securities rulings. This shows that the true perspective of the retail holder (i.e., a person who purchased XRP in the secondary market and has no direct relationship with Ripple) has legal weight and affects the court's interpretation of the asset's attributes.
XRP is a code, not a contract
Deaton's amicus curiae brief filed a specific request with the court: a clear statement that XRP itself is not a security, no matter how Ripple markets or sells it. His argument distinguishes the token (described only as a digital code) from the "investment contract" that may surround its initial sale. Torres agreed with this view and cited Deaton's exchanges in oral arguments with the federal judge in the LBRY case in footnote 16, particularly regarding secondary market sales of digital assets.
Beyond the Significance of Ripple
The ruling has been widely mentioned in discussions of its impact on Ripple's continuing business and XRP's market position. As previously reported, Ripple's legal victory reshaped the regulatory debate around crypto assets in the United States. It draws a meaningful line between the sale of investment contracts and the trading of digital tokens in the secondary market-a line the SEC has long refused to draw.
