New Theory Emerges About the Ripple vs. SEC Lawsuit – What if it Was Never About XRP?

A fresh theory circulating within the XRP community is shifting the narrative around the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit. Rather than solely about the classification of XRP, some now believe the case may have served a larger regulatory agenda.

According to community insights on social media, Ripple’s operational growth during the lawsuit contradicts the SEC’s original claims. The company expanded its On-Demand Liquidity network and secured banking partnerships while conducting tests on a private ledger for central bank digital currencies.

When XRP faced legal investigations in America, Ripple’s operational advancements raised questions about the lawsuit’s actual objectives.

Observers note that the SEC did not take action against major exchanges that resumed XRP trading after a court ruling. Final remedies accompanying the case show protracted delays, even though the agency formerly worked with urgency to advance legal proceedings.

Also Read: Regulatory Chaos Looms as Warren Fights Massive Cuts at CFPB and SEC

The repeated patterns raise doubts about whether the SEC wanted to stop Ripple operations or extend the lawsuit process until it establishes new regulatory standards.

(1/) What If the SEC Lawsuit Was Never About XRP — But About Buying Time?
A thread that might change the way you see the Ripple case:
What if the goal wasn’t to stop XRP…
…but to stall it just long enough?

Let’s connect the dots.
pic.twitter.com/LQWJ0FM6V0

— Stellar Rippler (@StellarNews007) April 18, 2025

The theory suggests that the SEC used the lawsuit to buy time and align regulatory frameworks with the rapid evolution of digital payment technologies.

Ripple, along with its partner network, invested time in building infrastructure that met ISO 20022 standards to prepare for establishing stronger connections with traditional financial systems.

Community Analysis Points to Strategic Delay, Not Direct Suppression

The XRP community now views the Ripple lawsuit as a potential example of regulatory stalling rather than enforcement. With Ripple’s global expansion largely unaffected outside the U.S., questions have emerged about the actual impact of the legal proceedings.

Supporters argue that the SEC may have intentionally slowed Ripple’s momentum to allow regulators time to develop policies for digital assets.

Ripple’s technology has experienced growing importance in worldwide financial structures despite the pending lawsuit. Ripple maintains its sector influence through participation in inter-country financial deals and digital money experimentation programs.

The progress of Ripple’s technology shows apparent differences compared to the delayed legal process in the United States, leading experts to believe the lawsuit acted as a timing management tool rather than an anti-Ripple measure.

As the Ripple vs. SEC case nears a possible conclusion, community speculation suggests that XRP may not have been the central issue. The goal may have been to slow Ripple’s growth until regulatory standards could evolve.

Also Read: Pi Coin Surges to $0.6490—But a 7.8M Token Unlock Could Trigger a Crash!

The post New Theory Emerges About the Ripple vs. SEC Lawsuit – What if it Was Never About XRP? appeared first on 36Crypto.