Ripple（主要是）與美國證券交易委員會（SEC）的長期戰鬥中取得了勝利

由於該案沒有晉升到高等法院，因此Analisa Torres法官的原始地方法院裁決（著名地區分了XRP向機構投資者和交易所的銷售額進行區分）尚未確立具有約束力的先例。

After a four-year legal battle, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dropped its lawsuit against Ripple. The case began in December 2019 when the SEC sued Ripple for allegedly carrying out an unregistered, $1.3 billion token offering. Throughout the case, the SEC struggled to define crypto tokens and apply existing securities laws to the rapidly evolving technology.

經過四年的法律鬥爭，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）撤銷了針對Ripple的訴訟。該案始於2019年12月，當時SEC起訴Ripple據稱進行了一項未註冊的，13億美元的令牌產品。在整個案例中，SEC努力定義加密代幣並將現有證券法應用於快速發展的技術。

Despite this, the case will not be advancing to a higher court, leaving Judge Analisa Torres’s original district court decision as the final ruling. This means that her decision will not be setting a binding precedent for other cases.

儘管如此，此案並不會前進到高等法院，而肛門法官最初的地方法院裁決是最終裁決。這意味著她的決定不會為其他案件設定有約束力的先例。

While the case has now come to an end, it has left industry insiders feeling that the case could have gone further. Cases at the district court level usually get appealed to a circuit court of appeals, setting a legal precedent for that specific circuit.

儘管此案已經結束，但它使行業內部人士感到案件可能進一步發展。地方法院一級的案件通常會向巡迴上訴法院提出上訴，為該特定巡迴法院設定法律先例。

However, as part of the settlement, both parties agreed to drop their appeals, meaning that Judge Torres’s original decision will not be setting a binding precedent for any specific circuit.

但是，作為和解的一部分，雙方同意放棄其上訴，這意味著托雷斯法官的原始決定不會為任何特定巡迴賽設定有約束力的先例。

“The challenge is that settlements are often confidential. So we may not get that clarity industry members seek,” says Charly Ho, legal counsel at Rikka.

Rikka的法律顧問Charly Ho說：“挑戰是定居點通常是機密的。因此，我們可能不會找到清晰的行業成員尋求。”

The case began when the SEC sued Ripple for allegedly selling XRP tokens to institutional investors without registering the offerings, a violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Judge Torres ruled in part of the case that these sales were indeed institutional offerings and that they should have been registered. However, she ruled that sales of XRP on exchanges were not institutional offerings and did not need to be registered.

該案始於SEC起訴Ripple，據稱將XRP代幣出售給機構投資者而沒有註冊這些產品，違反了1933年《美國證券法》第5條的規定。托雷斯法官在某種理子中裁定這些銷售確實是機構供應，並且應該已註冊。但是，她裁定XRP在交易所上的銷售不是機構產品，也不需要註冊。

This part of the ruling was a win for Ripple, as the SEC had argued that all sales of XRP should have been registered, no matter who the investor was. Judge Torres also ruled that the SEC failed to sufficiently notify the public about the types of tokens that would be considered securities.

該裁決的這一部分是波紋的勝利，因為SEC認為，無論投資者是誰，XRP的所有銷售都應該已經註冊。托雷斯法官還裁定，SEC未能充分通知公眾有關被視為證券的代幣類型。

Despite this ruling, the case could have continued. Both parties planned to appeal parts of the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The SEC planned to appeal Judge Torres’s ruling that it did not provide sufficient notice to the public about the types of tokens that would be considered securities.

儘管有這樣的裁決，但此案仍可以繼續。雙方計劃向第一巡迴上訴法院上訴部分。 SEC計劃上訴托雷斯法官的裁決，該裁決未向公眾提供有關被視為證券的代幣類型的充分通知。

Meanwhile, Ripple planned to appeal Judge Torres’s ruling that three sales of XRP to institutional investors should have been registered with the SEC. However, after months of legal battles, the SEC announced that it was dropping its case against Ripple.

同時，Ripple計劃上訴托雷斯法官的裁決，即XRP將三個XRP銷售給機構投資者，應該已在SEC登記。但是，經過數月的法律戰鬥，SEC宣布將其撤銷對Ripple的案件。

As part of the settlement agreement, both parties agreed to drop their planned appeals. The SEC also agreed to pay a portion of Ripple’s legal fees.

作為和解協議的一部分，雙方同意放棄計劃上訴。 SEC還同意支付一部分Ripple的法律費用。

“It’s a partial win for the SEC, a partial win for Ripple; and then the SEC was going to appeal the decision that was not favorable for it, and then Ripple was going to appeal the decision for the portion of the decision that was not favorable for Ripple. But because the SEC has now dropped the complaint and the claims against Ripple, part of the settlement discussions was Ripple agreeing to drop its appeal as well,” says Ho.

“這是SEC的部分勝利，是波紋的部分勝利；然後，SEC將對不利於此的決定提出上訴，然後Ripple將對不利的決定的決定提出上訴。但是，SEC現在已經撤銷了Ripple的訴求，並說出了ripple的一部分，因為這是在訴訟中的一部分，而這是在訴訟中的一部分。

The case has implications for other crypto firms in the U.S., as it could have set a precedent for how token offerings should be structured and what legal weight Judge Torres’s decision really carries.

此案對美國的其他加密貨幣公司具有影響，因為它可能為如何制定代幣產品的製定先例，以及托雷斯法官的決定真正帶來的法律權重。

“It’s a missed opportunity insofar as legal development is concerned,” says Joshua Chu, co-chair of Hong Kong Web3 Association.

香港Web3協會聯合主席Joshua Chu說：“就法律發展而言，這是一個錯過的機會。”

The case also comes at a time when the SEC seems to be pivoting away from the enforcement-heavy tactics that characterized the early stages of U.S. crypto regulation. In recent months, the regulator has begun to engage more closely with industry stakeholders in a bid to set clear rules of the road for the nascent sector.

該案也出現在SEC似乎正在擺脫美國加密監管早期階段的執法策略的旋轉。近幾個月來，監管機構已開始與行業利益相關者更加緊密地互動，以製定明確的新興行業道路規則。

This shift in strategy has been met with mixed reactions from crypto firms, some of which are still reeling from the SEC’s aggressive lawsuits.

加密企業的反應混合反應遇到了這一戰略的轉變，其中一些公司仍在從SEC的積極訴訟中撤出。

Earlier this year, the SEC sued major crypto exchange Coinbase and smaller exchange Gemini for allegedly operating as unregistered exchanges and failing to register their token offerings. Both cases are still ongoing.

今年早些時候，SEC起訴了主要的加密交易所Coinbase和較小的Exchange Gemini，據稱是作為未註冊的交易所運營的，未能註冊其令牌產品。這兩種情況仍在進行中。

The case also has implications for the broader legal landscape, which is rapidly evolving with the introduction of new regulatory frameworks in the EU and Hong Kong. The EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation is set to standardize the rules for crypto firms operating in the region, while Hong Kong is positioning itself as a global hub for Web3 companies.

該案也對更廣泛的法律格局有影響，隨著在歐盟和香港的新監管框架引入新的監管框架，該案件正在迅速發展。歐盟在加密資產（MICA）法規中的市場旨在標準化該地區運營的加密貨幣公司的規則，而香港則將自己定位為Web3公司的全球樞紐。

Together, these developments suggest that the final chapter in the SEC’s case against Ripple may also mark the beginning of a new era for crypto law, one that is defined by cooperation and collaboration rather than litigation and uncertainty.

這些發展共同表明，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）針對Ripple的最後一章也可能標誌著加密法的新時代的開始，該法律是由合作與協作而不是訴訟和不確定性定義的。

To discuss the implications of the case further, Magazine met with legal experts from across the globe: Charly Ho of Rikka in the U.S., Yuriy Brisov of Digital & Analogue Partners in Europe, and co-chair of Hong Kong Web3 Association Joshua Chu. Together, they unpack what Ripple’s “win” really means for crypto law, and whether the industry is any closer to

為了進一步討論此案的含義，雜誌會見了來自全球的法律專家：美國的Rikka的Charly Ho，歐洲的Digital＆Analogue Partners的Yuriy Brisov，以及香港Web3協會Joshua Chu的共同主席。他們一起解開了Ripple的“勝利”對加密法的真正含義，以及該行業是否更接近