- Ripple’s CLO, Stuart Alderoty, tagged SEC Chair Gary Gensler as “a struggling liability” amid speculation over spot ether ETF approval.
- Alderoty implied Gensler underestimated crypto’s resilience, leading to a political backlash.
- The SEC’s call to amend spot Ether ETF filings is perceived as a move to enhance crypto-friendliness ahead of elections.
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, referred to the US Chairman Gary Gensler as “a struggling liability.” Alderoty made this remark in a recent X post as the anticipation for the potential approval of spot Ether exchange-traded fund (ETFs) grows.
Reacting to the buzz surrounding the much-anticipated approval, Alderoty suggested that Gensler had “overplayed his hand.” He argued that Gensler initially saw the crypto industry as an easy target. Alderoty added:
“He relished being the guy that everyone loved to hate. He thought he was above Congressional oversight. That’s all gone. He’s now a struggling political liability,”
This viewpoint is shared by many market participants, including a noticeable sentiment shift from some Democrats. For instance, some see the SEC’s recent request for exchanges to amend spot Ether ETF filings as an attempt to appear more crypto-friendly and gain voter support.
A source familiar was quoted saying, “It is a completely unprecedented situation, which means it’s entirely political.”
The discussion is further contextualized by the news that former President Donald Trump’s campaign now accepts cryptocurrency donations. This development underscores the increasing political relevance of the crypto industry.
Alderoty’s stance is unsurprising, given Ripple’s prolonged legal battles with the SEC. Recently, the SEC proposed a fine exceeding $2 billion against the crypto company, citing violations related to selling to institutional investors. Ripple, however, argued that the fine should be significantly lower, around $10 million.
Nonetheless, the SEC maintains that a higher penalty is necessary to deter similar infractions in the future. According to the SEC, a mere penalty “would encourage other crypto asset issuers to violate Section 5 by making it a remarkably lucrative endeavor, and thus deprive investors of the disclosures Congress mandates, as a mere ‘cost of doing business.’
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
