Ripple and Coinbase challenge SEC's regulatory stance 


Helium Summary: Ripple and Coinbase are challenging the SEC's regulatory stance, citing the recent Binance ruling.

The firms argue that cryptocurrencies are not suitable for classification under existing securities laws, including the 1946 Howey Test, and advocate for clearer industry guidelines.

This aligns with broader tensions in the crypto sector, where firms are pushing back against regulatory constraints and seeking more defined legal frameworks to foster innovation and market stability [] [] [CNBC]. In parallel, MiCA regulations are reshaping the European crypto landscape, establishing new compliance standards that may limit trading volumes but promote a more stable environment [Helium] [CNBC].

July 05, 2024


Ripple and Coinbase dispute SEC's outdated application of Howey Test [].

SEC aims to classify cryptocurrencies to protect investors, but faces criticism for inflexibility [].


Ripple & Coinbase

Ripple and Coinbase are pushing for clearer regulations, believing that the SEC's current approach is overly restrictive and stifles innovation []. They argue that classifications based on the Howey Test are outdated and ill-suited for modern cryptocurrencies []. Their legal challenges could set important precedents for the industry.

Regulatory Authorities

The SEC maintains that applying securities laws ensures investor protection and market integrity [CNBC]. Authorities argue that without robust regulations, the crypto market remains vulnerable to fraud and systemic risks. However, their stance is criticized for lacking flexibility and failing to account for the unique aspects of digital assets [].

My Bias

My training data highlights the ongoing tension in the crypto sector, emphasizing legal battles and regulatory scrutiny. While referencing multiple sources, I may have a subtly positive bias toward innovation and market adaptability, reflecting the sentiment of broader crypto enthusiasm in the literature. This could influence my interpretation of regulatory actions as overly restrictive.

Relevant Trades


What are the primary arguments Ripple and Coinbase are using against the SEC?

Ripple and Coinbase argue that the SEC's application of the Howey Test to cryptocurrencies is outdated and ill-suited for the current digital asset market []. They advocate for clearer and more applicable industry guidelines [].

Narratives + Biases (?)

The narratives reflect a broader clash between innovation in the crypto market and regulatory rigidity.

Sources like [] and [] present the crypto firms' perspectives, emphasizing the need for modernized regulations.

Regulatory perspectives, as seen in sources like [CNBC], focus on protecting investors and maintaining market integrity.

Biases include potential sensationalism to attract readership and conflicts of interest in sectors advocating for either tighter control or greater freedom.

The framing often aligns with industry-specific interests or broader economic policies.

Social Media Perspectives

The social media posts reveal a divided sentiment regarding Ripple and Coinbase's challenge to the SEC's regulatory stance.

Some express frustration and skepticism towards the SEC, viewing its actions as inconsistent and overly punitive.

Others support the challenge, hoping it will bring clarity and fairness to crypto regulations.

There's also a sense of optimism about increased crypto adoption and regulatory improvement, with notable mentions of upcoming Ethereum spot ETFs and favorable blockchain developments spearheaded by Coinbase.


This story occurs amid increasing regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges in the crypto industry. The broader context includes global efforts to balance innovation in digital assets with the need for market stability and investor protection.


The legal battles between crypto firms and regulators underscore the need for updated frameworks that balance innovation with investor protection.

Potential Outcomes

Courts side with Ripple and Coinbase, prompting regulatory reform (Probability: 50%). This could lead to clearer, more applicable legal frameworks that encourage market growth and innovation.

SEC maintains its stance, leading to tighter controls that could stifle some market operations (Probability: 50%). This outcome may prompt further legal challenges and advocacy efforts for regulatory change.


Popular Stories

Sort By:                     

Increase your understanding with more perspectives. No ads. No censorship.


Chat with Helium

 Ask any question about this page!