Ripple’s tiff against the SEC has been taking multiple turns. Ripple made sure to put up a fight toward the allegations of the sale of “unregistered securities.” Just a couple of days ago, the CEO of the platform, Brad Garlingouse filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against him. While the verdict of that is still unknown, over 6,000 XRP holders have reportedly come forward urging the court to take them into consideration as third-party defendants during the course of the case.
Ripple Garners Third-Party Defendants
Deaton Law Firm decided to file a motion seeking the inclusion of 6,000 XRP holders, including John Deaton himself, into the Ripple vs SEC case. The letter stressed the lack of representation of the XRP holders in the case.
It is no doubt how XRP fell from a pedestal that it was sitting on over the years. Right after the asset was labeled a security by the SEC, XRP went on to record several lows amidst a bull market. While all the cryptocurrencies were raging to new highs, XRP was struggling to retain itself over $0.30. With this price change, the investors and holders of this altcoin were the most affected. Therefore, the holders of this altcoin decided to step up and put their side of the story out there.
The filling read,
“Given SEC’s own statements that this Court is the exclusive forum to hear claims regarding this matter, and Ripple’s position that XRP holders cannot rely on Ripple’s efforts as protection of their interests in this case and the nature of Ripple’s defense, the XRP Holders’ intervention is necessary.”
The crypto rally had created expectations of the coin surging to $1 amongst the community. However, the altcoin seemed to have been on a downward trajectory. At the time of writing, the altcoin was trading for $0.47 with a 10% surge in the last 24-hours. Yet, XRP’s fall from the third-position was a huge blow to the community. Currently, the altcoin resides in the seventh position with its market cap at $21.49 billion.
Furthermore, the team of 21 lawyers continues to precede this case as the prospects of a settlement were negated by both parties.