Ripple and XRP traders had a difficult year. With immense scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] of the United States, Ripple endured an array of issues over the year. The SEC was adamant about accusing Ripple of selling unregistered securities. These “unregistered securities” were nothing but XRP, as per the financial watchdog. While regulators from all over the world issued statements suggesting that XRP could not be categorized as securities, the SEC did not budge. Ripple has been dealing with this lawsuit since the beginning of this year. In more recent news about the case, the judge in the case ruled out XRP holders as defendants.
SEC’s hostile nature towards Ripple appalled many, particularly the holders of the altcoin. Several holders went on to protest and even filed a motion to be a part of the ongoing Ripple vs. SEC case. While these individuals wished to put their part of the story before the law, their involvement went on to be quashed by the court.
Back when the SEC revealed that it was taking Ripple to the court, an array of exchanges decided to drop support for XRP. This in turn affected the price of the altcoin. While all the other coins were enjoying the gains provided by the bulls during the first quarter of the year, XRP was seen trying to balance itself from hitting a low point.
XRP holders cannot be a part of Ripple’s lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres went on to rule that the motion filed by the holders of the altcoin to be a part of the lawsuit was quashed. She noted that the token holders would not be able to participate in the lawsuit as defendants. Revealing the reason behind this decision, the Judge pointed out that the involvement of XRP holders will coerce the SEC to take “enforcement action” against the lot.
This does not mean that the holders of the altcoin were out of the case. Judge Torres noted that the token holders would be part of the case as “amicus curiae.” This means that the token holders’ insights and advice would be taken by the court. However, litigation was out of the picture.
The judge further added,
“The court concludes that amici status strikes a proper balance between permitting movants to assert their interest in this case and allowing the parties to remain in control of the litigation.”