As the SEC case against Ripple stretches into the new year, XRP supporters are looking for any advantage Ripple may have over the SEC in hopes that it could increase Ripple’s chances of winning the case.
Is Ripple Another Step Ahead of the SEC in the Ongoing Case?
Fortunately, XRP supporters can take a look at recent statements from the US Department of Justice, which classify the two cryptocurrency tokens as “commodities.” The statements have fueled optimism among community members, who see the statement as a valid point of reference for Ripple’s lawyers in the ongoing case.
The classification of two cryptocurrencies, specifically CRV and MNGO, as commodities by the US Department of Justice can be seen in a recent lawsuit against Avraham Eisenberg.
Avraham Eisenberg, who was allegedly involved in the hacking of the decentralized exchange platform Mango Markets, was recently charged with market manipulation after he was arrested on December 28 in Puerto Rico.
The documents filed against Eisenberg, who allegedly stole more than $50 million through hacking, were filed in the same court where the SEC’s case against Ripple is currently being heard.
In the filing, the DoJ refers to CRV and MNGO as commodities in various passages. This has fueled positive sentiment among Ripple supporters who are speculating that Ripple’s XRP could also be categorized as a commodity rather than a security if the DoJ can classify this other crypto asset as a commodity.
However, some notable figures in the cryptocurrency industry refuted those claims, highlighting the difference in the DOJ’s situation.
One such person was Delphi Labs General Counsel Gabriel Shapiro. Shapiro explained that the mark on both cryptocurrencies is not bullish for XRP or cryptocurrencies in general.
“The fact that the case does not characterize the relevant tokens as securities is not optimistic/positive in any way and just stems from a litigation strategy – the fewer predicate issues the government has to raise in its case, the better.” Moreover, swaps are as big, if not bigger, a regulatory quagmire than securities.” He wrote in a tweet.
Similarly, popular attorney John E Deaton dismissed these claims, saying the plaintiffs’ choice of language carries no weight as a defense tool for Ripple.
According to his tweet below;
“NOT TRUE. Plaintiffs are simply calling tokens commodities for their own prosecutorial reasons. It doesn’t matter if the underlying asset is a commodity or a security – it is a fraud. Calling it a security creates an unnecessary burden of proof.”