Deaton Shares Top Reason Why He Joined Ripple Case on Behalf of XRP Holders

The attorney says XRP holders and developers are not in the same situation as Ripple.

Attorney John E. Deaton has disclosed the primary reason why he fought to join the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case against Ripple on behalf of XRP holders.

The lawyer representing over 75,000 XRP holders as a friend of the court in the case over whether XRP is an unregistered security made this known in a tweet yesterday. It came in response to a recent Blockworks interview of Ripple General Counsel Stuart Alderoty, where the attorney disclosed that Ripple would appeal the case if the court sided with the SEC.

Commenting on this, Deaton noted that Ripple could afford to appeal the case, as its On-Demand Liquidity sales of XRP continue while it is pending. However, he pointed out that XRP holders and developers are in a different situation. Consequently, the CryptoLaw founder noted that his primary goal is to bring clarity to secondary market XRP sales even if Ripple loses and even if this clarity comes only as a judicial opinion.

@Ripple can afford to appeal because the status quo would continue (ie ODL continues and Ripple can still sell #XRP while the appeal is pending). #XRPHolders, developers on the #XRPL, etc., are not in the same position as Ripple.

— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) March 3, 2023

It is not the first time Deaton has alluded to the importance of representation for XRP holders in the lawsuit. The attorney highlighted this last month, clarifying that Ripple’s primary responsibility was to itself. 

“In the end, Ripple must decide what’s best for Ripple and its employees and shareholders – not what’s best for XRP Holders or other businesses developing on the XRPL,” Deaton wrote.

– Advertisement –

The case has trudged on for over two years and is now awaiting a court ruling which Deaton says could come soon or take two more months. Ripple recently filed a supplemental letter citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling it believes supports its fair notice defense.

– Advertisement –