Ripple CEO: XRP Ledger Existed Before Ripple, XRP Is a Commodity

In a renewed effort to draw a clear line between Ripple, the company, and the XRP Ledger (XRPL), Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has emphasized a key legal and structural distinction that could shape the future of XRP’s regulatory standing. According to a recent X post by crypto commentator Xaif, Garlinghouse affirmed that “the XRP Ledger existed before Ripple,” making a compelling case for XRP being classified as a commodity rather than a security.

Xaif shared an image of Garlinghouse’s statement, where the CEO likened Ripple’s relationship with XRP to that of an energy company with natural resources. “Certainly, we are an interested party in the success of the XRP Ledger, for sure—we own a lot of XRP. But it’s a bit like saying Exxon owns a lot of oil. That doesn’t make oil a security. Oil, of course, is classified as a commodity,” Garlinghouse noted.

The Legal and Structural Distinction Between Ripple and XRP

Garlinghouse’s remarks underscore a point Ripple has consistently argued in its long-standing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): that XRP, as a digital asset, should not be considered a security simply because Ripple holds a significant amount of it. By drawing parallels with commodities like oil, the Ripple CEO is attempting to reinforce the view that XRP, like other decentralized cryptocurrencies, functions independently of any one company, even one that holds large reserves of it.

The XRP Ledger, a decentralized, open-source blockchain launched in 2012, was created to facilitate fast, low-cost cross-border payments. Ripple was established after the XRP Ledger (XRPL) was already operational, making the company a contributor and stakeholder rather than the network’s creator. This timeline is essential in countering claims that XRP was issued as part of an unregistered securities offering.

Commodity vs Security: The Regulatory Stakes

At the heart of Garlinghouse’s statement is a broader and increasingly urgent debate in the crypto space: how should digital assets be classified under U.S. law? A designation as a commodity places XRP under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is seen as a more favorable regulator for the industry. In contrast, classifying XRP as a security would trigger strict SEC regulations, potentially severely restricting its use and availability in the US market.

Garlinghouse’s analogy with Exxon and oil is particularly pointed. The comparison underscores the notion that ownership alone does not dictate regulatory classification, especially in cases where the underlying asset is freely traded on public markets and has established use cases beyond speculation. The argument is that if oil, a vital commodity for global commerce, isn’t considered a security just because corporations own large quantities, then XRP shouldn’t be either.

A Pivotal Moment for XRP and Crypto Regulation

The timing of Garlinghouse’s reiteration is significant. The SEC vs Ripple case, which has spanned several years, appears to be drawing closer to a conclusion. As industry observers speculate on the outcome, clarifying the distinction between XRP and Ripple remains critical to shaping the asset’s future within the United States and globally.

Xaif’s spotlight on this key statement has sparked renewed interest in the ongoing legal interpretations surrounding XRP, especially as regulators, investors, and companies wait for more clarity on how digital assets will be governed. The commodity argument strengthens Ripple’s legal position and helps articulate a broader framework that could benefit other decentralized blockchain projects facing similar scrutiny.

In conclusion, Brad Garlinghouse’s reaffirmation that “the XRP Ledger existed before Ripple” and that “XRP is a commodity” is more than a defensive statement—it is part of a calculated narrative aimed at shaping the future of crypto regulation. As the Ripple case approaches its potential resolution, this distinction could be crucial in deciding XRP’s legal status and long-term viability in the evolving digital economy.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.

---

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News