Cryptocurrency researcher SMQKE shared a video clip from a Zoom meeting, legally explaining why XRP's (Ripple) non-security status is reasonable and long overdue.
The core argument of the video clip lies in the absence of a contractual relationship between XRP buyers and Ripple. According to the discussion in the video, the lack of such a contractual relationship is a key legal basis for distinguishing whether a transaction constitutes a security.
A speaker in the video, when comparing traditional securities with digital assets, pointed out that securities transactions are usually accompanied by the signing of a formal document or agreement. He then raised a question: do purchasers of digital currencies also receive similar contractual evidence? Another participant directly responded that investors who purchased XRP on exchanges did not receive any contract, nor did they enter into any agreement with Ripple that would impose obligations on them.
The speaker further deepened this argument, questioning how an "investment contract" could be formed without an underlying contract. This viewpoint emphasizes a legal interpretation: if there are no enforceable terms between the buyer and the issuer, then the asset may not possess the defining characteristics of a security.
Focusing on Legal Classification and Market Impact
The above discussion aligns with the broader considerations of regulatory bodies currently scrutinizing whether digital assets meet the criteria of an investment contract. The lack of a direct contractual relationship has consistently been a recurring core element in arguments supporting XRP's exclusion from the traditional securities category.
Ongoing Debate on Regulatory Definitions
SMQKE's post on X (formerly Twitter) adds a new perspective to the ongoing debate surrounding the classification of digital assets under financial law. This video clip particularly emphasizes principles of contract law, specifically the requirement for an agreement establishing mutual obligations.