John Deaton, a U.S. lawyer, recently recalled that his involvement in the XRP-related lawsuit was not due to his partnership with Ripple, but rather because the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in its lawsuit against Ripple, defined XRP itself as an unregistered security. This statement prompted him to intervene in the case on behalf of ordinary shareholders.
Deaton stated that he initially bought Bitcoin when he first got into crypto assets, and later acquired Ethereum and XRP. He mentioned that XRP's faster transaction confirmation speed is one of the reasons he continues to pay attention to this asset.
The cause is related to family experience.
Deaton said what truly prompted him to take legal action was his daughter's investment experience. He claimed that after his daughter turned 18, she used her accumulated birthday money to buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP, with $10,000 invested in Bitcoin and two other investments of $2,500 each in Ethereum and XRP.
In his view, these ordinary buyers have no direct connection with Ripple's management, nor did they purchase XRP based on dependence on the company's operations. Therefore, when the SEC argued in the lawsuit that XRP itself is a security, he believed this went beyond previous enforcement guidelines.
Submitted comments on behalf of 75,000 holders
Subsequently, Deaton filed a motion to advocate for ordinary XRP holders in the case. According to him, approximately 75,000 XRP holders from 143 countries and regions subsequently joined in support.
He also stated that he had not communicated directly with Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse before initially submitting the documents. There was speculation that his actions were funded by Ripple, but he denied this, stating that his involvement stemmed from his opposition to regulators directly classifying the tokens as securities.
The court ruling cited relevant documents.
Deaton stated that his amicus brief was later included in the formal case file. In his final ruling, the judge directly cited the brief, along with sworn statements submitted by XRP holders, and determined that XRP itself was not a security.
This case subsequently became a representative example in discussions within the crypto industry regarding the distinction between asset attributes and sales activities. Deaton also stated that the case is now being used as a teaching example in some law schools for decentralized law initiatives.
