Ripple writes to U.S Senator on regulatory ‘havoc and confusion’

Ripple writes to U.S Senator on regulatory ‘havoc and confusion’

SEC v. Ripple has generated a great deal of press and provoked strong words from stakeholders on both sides. As the lawsuit drags on, more American politicians have come out to express their views on the case and crypto-regulations at large.

Most recently, in a statement dated 25 September, Ripple Labs Inc. responded to Senator Patrick Toomey’s request for feedback on the clarity of laws linked to cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology.

In the letter, Ripple criticized the current regulatory scene and offered suggestions for “achieving optimal outcomes.”

Ripple’s General Counsel Stuart Alderoty shared a link to the letter and thanked Toomey for “engaging with the industry.”

2/ It all comes back to clear regulatory frameworks that allow innovation to flourish, with consumer and market protections. We don’t have clarity today in the US, despite those who insist on incorrectly suggesting otherwise. Thank you @SenToomey for engaging with the industry.— Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) September 28, 2021

Chairman @GaryGensler and the SEC must lay out clear guidelines on what cryptocurrencies they view as securities. Regulation by enforcement is extremely objectionable and will kill domestic innovation.Watch my full interview with @SquawkCNBC. pic.twitter.com/DLqIFT3SGh— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) September 15, 2021

What did Ripple say?

Writing about the need for a “clear regulatory framework,” the blockchain firm warned,

“…regulation by enforcement, the preferred approach by regulators within the United States, has served only to wreak havoc and confusion in the cryptocurrency marketplace and ultimately hurt consumers, markets and innovation.”

What are these legislative efforts?

Notes from the courtroom

That isn’t the only battle Ripple is involved in, however, with the SEC’s lawsuit against the firm still going on.

“[They] reflect deliberations by SEC staff, and have therefore been redacted or withheld pursuant to the deliberative privilege process.”

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Source