The XRP community is expressing outrage over what they perceive as the SEC’s favoritism towards Ethereum, sparking calls for legal action. Such controversy arose due to the recent act of the SEC to dismiss the suit that challenged the security aspect of Ethereum in parallel with approving a physical Ether-based ETF. This action has raised a bitter comparison with the ongoing legal struggle that Ripple has against the US SEC, increasing claims of regulatory duality.
Some members have especially criticized Bill Morgan, who actively engages in the XRP community and has expressed most of the perceived Helium favoritism. This is further evidenced by the fact that Ethereum was only given a “second pass” nearly half a decade later from the famous Hinman speech at the SEC while not being a security.
Read Also: Ripple Launches RLUSD on Ethereum and XRPL Amid Regulatory Watch
XRP Supporters Demand Performance Improvements Now
This has angered XRP supporters, who have demanded improvements in its performance. As the pseudonymous analyst @digitalassetbuy has said, the SEC’s actions are criminal, and Ripple must sue the SEC and its bosses, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen; the controversy is called “ETHGATE.” As a result, the analyst pointed out that Ripple has spent more than $100 million on issues with the SEC during the past three years, while Ethereum has not.
One analyst was struck that the SEC felt compelled to write a letter to ConsenSys if Ethereum is decentralized. Morgan fired back and declared, “A decentralization factor is also a made-up concept; no one has explained how it applies or why it inherently gets a token, more or less a security or commodity; it is a catch-all phrase that just attempts to argue a token can somehow instantly become a commodity if it falls outside of the SEC’s grasp.
Speculations on the SEC’s approach to future listings and its inconsistent treatment of cryptocurrencies have kept the topic hot in the crypto community. The XRP community’s demand for legal action against such market manipulations and the constant changes in cryptocurrency markets demonstrate that all these have deeper concerns about legal regulation and the legal developments underlying the issue.
