When Ripple won its landmark case against the SEC, most coverage focused on the legal teams, the regulatory implications, and what it meant for the broader crypto industry. What largely went
When Ripple won its landmark case against the SEC, most coverage focused on the legal teams, the regulatory implications, and what it meant for the broader crypto industry.
What largely went unnoticed was the role played by thousands of ordinary XRP holders who showed up, on the record, to fight for their asset.
Attorney John Deaton, who represented XRP holders as an intervening party in the case, laid out exactly how that community contribution shaped the outcome in a detailed post on X this week.
Deaton's argument isn't anecdotal. Judge Analisa Torres, in her final summary judgment ruling that "XRP itself is not a security," specifically cited the nearly 4,000 XRP holder affidavits Deaton submitted in the case.
Related: Ripple reveals lawyers called the company "done"
Out of thousands of exhibits filed across the entire proceedings, Torres referenced only several dozen in her final decision. The holder affidavits were among them.
That distinction matters. A judge citing community affidavits in a landmark securities ruling is not standard procedure.
It signals that the real-world perspective of retail holders, people who bought XRP on secondary markets without any direct relationship with Ripple, carried legal weight in shaping how the court interpreted the asset's status.
Deaton's amicus brief made a specific request to the court: declare affirmatively that XRP itself is not a security, regardless of how Ripple may have marketed or sold it.
His argument drew a line between the token, described as nothing more than digital code, and the investment contracts that may have surrounded its initial sales.
Trending on TheStreet RoundtableTorres agreed, and Footnote 16 of her ruling cited an oral argument exchange between Deaton and a federal judge in the LBRY case, specifically on the question of secondary market sales of digital assets.
The ruling has been widely discussed in the context of what it means for Ripple's ongoing business and XRP's market standing.
As previously reported, Ripple's legal victory reshaped the regulatory conversation around crypto assets in the United States.
It has drawn a meaningful distinction between the sale of investment contracts and the trading of digital tokens themselves on secondary markets, a line the SEC had long resisted drawing.
Related: If you invested $1,000 in Bitcoin when Satoshi created it, here's what you'd have today
