Ripple vs. SEC Lawsuit: Was It All a Smokescreen? Bombshell Claim—US Govt Controls XRPL

Hold onto your ledgers—the crypto courtroom drama just took a conspiratorial twist.

### The Distraction Doctrine

Legal analysts whisper what retail investors feared: the three-year SEC battle might've been theater while regulators quietly seized the strings. XRP holders check their wallets twice.

### The XRPL Ownership Gambit

One pundit's blockchain forensics allegedly trace the XRP Ledger's master keys to—wait for it—a .gov server. Cue the 'not your keys, not your coins' chorus.

### Regulatory Chess or Checkmate?

If true, this redefines 'public blockchain' more creatively than a Wall Street balance sheet. The real question: was the lawsuit ever about investor protection—or just buying time for the ultimate rug pull?

The SEC Case Was A Smokescreen For Government-Backed Expansion

Pumpius argues that Ripple was never the outsider many believed it to be. From the beginning, it built its technology for banks and institutions, not retail traders or hobbyists. It offered near-zero fees, instant settlement, and compliance with the ISO 20022 messaging standard before it was even required, the kind of features built for large-scale financial infrastructure. He says this is not the profile of a garage startup fighting the system, but of a network designed to replace SWIFT, the global payments messaging system.

He says Ripple’s partner list shows its LINK to the government. These include Federal Reserve pilot projects, central banks in Bhutan, Palau, and Montenegro, payment corridors in the Middle East and Asia, and relationships with U.S. defense-linked banks such as BNY Mellon. To Pumpius, this is a footprint of sanctioned expansion, not rogue innovation.

The lawsuit with the SEC, in his view, served as the perfect cover. While news headlines painted Ripple as “in trouble,” the company quietly signed over 1,700 contracts and NDAs with major financial institutions. Many of these were with foreign partners, creating the appearance that the company was “fleeing” the U.S. In reality, Pumpius says, this was part of a blueprint to open payment corridors abroad first, then bring the infrastructure back to the U.S. once it was ready.

XRPL As Washington’s Blockchain: From Money To Identity Control

According to Pumpius, the endgame goes far beyond payments. He claims the U.S. intends to use XRPL as the backbone of a blockchain-based reserve network, shifting control from traditional banking systems to a government-linked ledger. A key part of this plan, he says, is RLUSD, Ripple’s stablecoin “pilot.” It is fully U.S.-compliant, designed for institutional custody, and connects directly to the XRPL. Once activated, RLUSD could serve as the domestic bridge asset, while XRP handles global settlements.

If the XRPL can move money, it can also move any asset, including sensitive identity information like DNA. Tokenizing bio-data, he warns, WOULD give whoever controls the ledger influence not just over finance, but over personal identity itself.

The idea is to make a project look like it is resisting the system, allow it to grow freely outside the spotlight, and then reveal its accurate alignment once the infrastructure is too entrenched to oppose. By the time the public understands the scope of the network, Pumpius says, the rails are already in place.

In his view, Ripple built global financial rails under the guise of fighting regulators, while the U.S. ensured the technology would work seamlessly at home. From payments to real-world assets and eventually identity data, the XRPL could become the state’s blockchain arm. For Pumpius, the lawsuit was never the battle; the expansion was the mission.