[seibelj]

XRP is centralized - it was issued by a centralized corporation, the ledger is permissioned (which is why it’s so fast) so not just anyone can join the network in a meaningful way, and the way it was distributed is highly suspect.

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are entirely different. Ripple is not like bitcoin and the regulations of the USA and other countries will affect bitcoin’s value but not determine bitcoin’s continuing existence unlike XRP.

[greggturkington]

This is also why the SEC can sue Ripple but not, say, Vitalik Buterin. They specifically do not consider BTC, ETH and other currencies as securities.

[seibelj]

Correct - they explicitly said BTC and ETH are not securities. However ETH's launch was conducted via ICO, where people sent BTC in return for ETH, and the exact same launch style was later declared de-facto illegal security sales with companies being penalized.

The SEC essentially caved to the crypto industry and said (paraphrasing) "Yes, ETH was launched as a security, but it became 'decentralized enough' where it is now a commodity". But gave no guidance on how any other coin could become "decentralized enough" to accomplish the same feat, to the detriment of the US crypto industry which has fallen way behind offshore entities.

[ineedasername]

I read that more as the SEC saying "We didn't reall know what we were dealing with at the time." And their thinking and policy decisions have evolved.to fit both their understanding and evolving crypto scene.

[noxer]

Same should apply to XRP then because it exist way longer than ETH. But unlike ETH, XRP was never sold in return for and arbitrary amount of BTC/USD it was first given away for free and later sold at market value.

[ineedasername]

Date of origin may not matter as much as when it came to the SEC's attention. The SEC allowed BTC & ETH under a set of policies & understanding of crypto. That understanding evolved, changing policy, and then XRP got on their radar under the new policy regime. It probably helps that ETH was at least nominally tied to the USD.

Keep in mind I'm not defending the SEC's decision, just speculating on how the policy decisions might have been made & justified.

[arcticbull]

I think they should shut them both down :)

[noxer]

Why? Does it hurt you? Its all just a huge tech experiment just like the internet was. We have no clue where it leads to but I want to see it in 10 or 20 years.

[noxer]

>XRP is centralized

Useless statement XRP is the token there is no definition what makes the token centralized or not. Half the tokens owned by one party? or maybe a quarter is enough already? Its a useless statement as there is no common definition. no one talks about token decentralization anyway. Its about the control over the network that should not be centralized.

>the ledger is permissioned

This is factually wrong. Anyone can transact on the ledger there is no permission required form anyone and no one has the power to exclude someone.

>so not just anyone can join the network in a meaningful way

Also factually wrong. You can "join" the network in any possible way (node/full node/validator/participant/developer/you name it). You can change the code and send in you amendment. If 80% think is worth adding its added. If not its probably because the proposal was garbage not because someone has the power to block your amendment. So far there has been 1 amendment not supported by ripple that still reached the 80% support. Ripple could do absolutely nothing against that.

XRPs existence is also not determined by the USA. XRP would exist without ripple or the USA as long some people run the software it exists. Even if all would go offline it could be restarted any time.