The value of one of the world’s most valuable cryptocurrencies is collapsing, and a recent complaint from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the root cause of the free fall. to me CoinMarketCap, The XRP token has dropped more than 42% in the past 24 hours and is down more than 63% from its 30-day high of $ 0.76. It now sits at only $ 0.27.
XRP price fluctuations rival the most volatile cryptocurrency. Since it reached an all-time high of $ 3.84 in January 2018, the coin has spent most of the past two years getting closer and closer to pennies. Last month, on the back of big rallies from other cryptocurrencies, XRP saw its biggest rise in years, but these gains were all erased this week by ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse admits that the SEC was planning to file a comprehensive lawsuit against the company in the final days of the current administration.
Securities and Exchange Commission Basic argument Is that XRP has always been safe and that it had to be registered with the commission from the start over seven years ago. The SEC claims that the defendants in the case – specifically Ripple Corporation, CEO Bran Garlinghouse and CEO Chris Larsen – generated more than $ 1.38 billion in XRP token sales.
Ripple recently hit $ 10 billion after a $ 200 million financing round. Ripple and the XRP token are technically separate, but Ripple maintains a sizeable total of the coin’s market value, and at one point the XRP token itself was referred to as “ripple” and shared a logo with the company.
The company’s streak was that XRP is not a security but is in fact a tool for financial institutions, although the currency’s volatility has discouraged banks from actually adopting the token. Meanwhile, XRP is present in a number of cryptocurrency exchanges, a fact that could broaden the scope of this legal complaint and affect more players in the space.
at Blog post Published yesterday and published shortly after the SEC’s lawsuit was filed, Garlinghouse wrote that the SEC’s claims were “completely false as to the facts and the law” and that the company was “confident” that it “would ultimately prevail before impartial fact-finders.”