Türkçe
Español
The ongoing legal battle between Ripple 
$3 and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took a definitive turn with the confirmation of how the $125 million fine was paid. Former SEC attorney Marc Fagel clarified that the amount was paid in cash, emphasizing that Ripple did not use its cryptocurrency, XRP, for the payment. This revelation quelled weeks-long rumors within the crypto community about the fine being settled with XRP, shifting the focus toward the critical appeals process for the case’s future trajectory.
Ripple Settles Fine in Cash, Dispelling Speculation
Fagel’s statement, “Ripple paid the fine amount in cash,” eliminated any ambiguity regarding the payment method. The company’s direct dollar transfer to U.S. judicial authorities demonstrated full compliance with legal procedures. Discarding the option of paying with XRP highlighted the decisive influence of regulatory sensitivities once again.
Opting for cash weakened some investors’ expectations that cryptocurrencies could fulfill official obligations. Meanwhile, Ripple’s decision to use traditional currency reflected both the SEC’s regulatory standards and the monetary policy requirements in the case file. Some in the community viewed this as a bold move, while others argued that it deferred XRP’s potential to gain official status. Crypto Traders Are Rushing to This App – Here’s Why You Should Too
Appeals Process to Determine Case’s Ultimate Trajectory
Paying the fine did not close the case file; the resolution of disputes hinges on the appellate court’s review. The parties are closely monitoring the expected appeals schedule to finalize initial decisions. As the process drags on, Ripple’s legal strategy continues to influence market perception and XRP price dynamics.
The appeals phase could either bring a final consensus between Ripple and the SEC or usher in a new cycle of uncertainty. While investors await the court’s decision, they are evaluating potential domino effects in cryptocurrency regulation. Although the outcome still remains unclear, signals from the process bolster the trend of companies meeting legal obligations with traditional payment methods.
