Ripple’s $125M XRP Fine Stands as Court Rejects SEC Deal Attempt

By: tronweekly|2025/05/16 15:00:13
0
Share
copy
Key Takeaways:Judge Torres rejected Ripple and the SEC’s joint bid to dissolve the XRP sales injunction.The court ruled that their settlement request failed to meet procedural requirements under Rule 60.Ripple and the SEC are still aligned to resolve the case through a revised joint motion.In a dramatic development in the long-running SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit, Judge Analisa Torres denied a joint motion by Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking a path to settlement.The motion sought to lift the injunction in place that prohibited institutional XRP sales by Ripple and reduce the civil fine from $125 million to $50 million. The judge, however, did not grant the request, deeming it “procedurally improper.”#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Judge Torres has denied the parties’ motion for an indicative ruling. “If jurisdiction were restored to this Court, the Court would deny the parties’ motion as procedurally improper.” pic.twitter.com/4s95ILvzsy— James K. Filan (@FilanLaw) May 15, 2025The crux of the matter is that of the procedural mechanism utilized. Parties had invoked the provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, by means of which a district court is permitted to make a non-binding indicative ruling in cases in which its jurisdiction is restricted on account of an active appeal.Judge Torres ruled that even assuming jurisdiction was revived, she would have rejected the motion, noting that the parties had not achieved the required legal burden for this relief.Legal Oversight in Motion Draws ScrutinyThe motion, submitted on May 8, 2025, was preceded by a settlement agreement on April 23 being signed by Ripple’s lawyers and subsequently sanctioned by the SEC. Both had sought the approval of their agreement in accordance with the SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. standard, in which review of consent agreements is permitted.Based on precedent in the law that is quoted by the judge, this kind of relief is awarded only in “exceptional circumstances.” The motion, however, did not cite Rule 60 at all. Instead, Ripple and the SEC presented the proposal in the form of a “settlement,” missing the proper procedural avenue by mistake. That mistake was fatal.Attorney Bill Morgan clarified that the process of settlement was in motion but went off course on the fourth step, when the court dismissed their indicative ruling on account of a procedural flaw. The court specified that should they desire to proceed, the parties need to re-file according to the proper rule.How the settlement process is going1. Settlement agreement signed by Ripple parties on April 23, 2025 and by the SEC on May 8, 2025 . 2. Parties filed a motion to hold the appeal and cross appeal in abeyance 3. Parties file rule 62.1 motion asking for an indicative...— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) May 16, 2025SEC and Ripple Still on the Same PageIn spite of the procedural hiccup, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, assured that everything remains the same with regard to the parties’ mutual intent for settlement. He stressed that the court’s decision was for how they should be submitting, but not the substance of their submission.Nothing in today’s order changes Ripple’s wins (i.e. XRP is not a security, etc). This is about procedural concerns with the dismissal of Ripple’s cross-appeal. Ripple and the SEC are fully in agreement to resolve this case and will revisit this issue with the Court, together. https://t.co/vBQdBD3FNe— Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) May 15, 2025Ripple and the SEC are in it together in their quest for a resolution of the case. A re-drafted joint motion, properly supported by Rule 60, should be next. Upon being granted, it would enable the parties to go ahead with a lowered penalty and revoke the ban on sales, the last steps toward an end for this high-profile case.Related Reading | Franklin Templeton Opens Blockchain Fund with $20 Minimum Investment

You may also like

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

Most of the capital invested in TAO will ultimately subsidize development activities that do not provide value back to token holders.

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

The market is becoming increasingly intelligent, and they are abandoning ecosystems that rely solely on funding to support false activity. Now, what is being rewarded is real throughput, real users, and real revenue.

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

What exactly is RaveDAO? Why is Rave able to rise so much?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

Liquidity saved Polkadot's life.

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

The US has taken away Iran’s most important card, but has also lost the path to ending the war

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions

The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.


There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."


Question One: Is this encryption the same as Signal's encryption?


No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.


In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.


X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.


This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.


The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.


The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.


After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."


From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.


In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.



As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."


Issue 2: Does Grok know what you're messaging in private?


Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.


For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.


This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.


There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."


Issue 3: Why is there no Android version?


X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.


In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.



WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.


X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.


These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.


Elon Musk's "Super App"


This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.



X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.


Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.


The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.


X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.


The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more