SEC Commissioner Slams Ripple Settlement: ’A Gift to Crypto Cowboys’
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce fires shots at the Ripple settlement, calling it a regulatory surrender that invites more chaos. ’Watch the wild west get wilder,’ she warns.
Peirce argues the deal undermines the SEC’s authority—just as institutional money floods into crypto. Timing couldn’t be worse, or more ironic, for an agency that moves at bureaucratic speeds while markets move at blockchain speeds.
Bonus jab: Another win for ’innovation’—Wall Street’s favorite euphemism for rule-breaking.
Crenshaw slams SEC
Crenshaw, however, argued that the terms go too far. She explained that by wiping out the earlier court-imposed penalties, the agreement blocks the SEC from pursuing future enforcement tied to XRP sales.
In her view, this weakens the legal precedent and limits the Commission’s future ability to act on similar cases. She wrote:
“If, however, Ripple decides tomorrow to sell unregistered XRP tokens to institutional investors—in plain defiance of the court’s order—this Commission will do absolutely nothing about it. There will be no enforcement of the law. The hundreds of hours spent by the court in this matter will be rendered meaningless. And the court’s decision will be effectively vacated.”
The Commissioner also noted that this deal reflects a troubling shift within the SEC toward reducing its crypto enforcement agenda.
Crenshaw expressed concern that this direction sends confusing signals to the public and the industry, while asking numerous questions.
She questioned:
“Does the resolution suggest to the market that we agree with the court’s ruling? What is the legal effect of the ruling in place? How can we ensure that investors get the information that they need and to which they are entitled under the law?”
Crenshaw stressed that settlements like this risk sending mixed signals to the market. She warned that such actions leave investors vulnerable and fail to provide the clarity for responsible decision-making.
Ultimately, she concluded that the agreement raises more questions than answers, particularly regarding enforcement consistency and investor protection.
