Ripple, the issuer of popular altcoin XRP, received in-principle approval for a Major Payment Institution License application from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. This approval is significant for the company’s expansion outside the United States.
Approval in Principle for Major Payment Institution License Application
The company recently announced that the approval would also enable the company to further scale customer usage of its crypto-backed On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) service. The service allows financial institutions to send money across borders instantly using XRP as a bridge currency.
In a statement, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said that Singapore “continues to be a global leader in setting open rules to recognize the innovation and real-world benefits digital assets bring to the global financial system.” Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stu Alderoty, noted that many countries are closely following Singapore’s pioneering leadership in developing a clear classification and licensing framework. For Ripple to receive final approval from the country, it still needs to take several steps to finalize the application.
Earlier this month, the issuer of the second-largest stablecoin USD Coin (USDC), Circle, obtained a Major Payment Institution License in Singapore. Crypto.com exchange also received a license on June 1 and stated it could continue expanding its Digital Payment Token services in the country.
“The US is Losing”
In an interview with The Block, Alderoty claimed the U.S. is “losing” as countries, including the UK, the UAE, and the EU, are taking steps to establish clear rules for crypto. “It’s not surprising that a significant portion of Ripple’s business is outside the U.S., in these significant centers that provide regulatory clarity,” he said. Observers argue that uncertainty in the U.S., stemming from recent lawsuits launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Coinbase and Binance and a slow-moving Congress, is stifling innovation in the country.
Alderoty added, “We will see growth outside the U.S. because the U.S. has not adopted this forward-looking regulatory approach, or, to put it another way, the U.S. has not even found a regulatory framework that is viable for this industry to survive,” emphasizing that regulatory clarity does not mean exemption from regulation.
