儘管最近進展，XRP訴訟仍然對Ripple重新啟動機構銷售的能力蒙上陰影。

Ripple最近在與SEC的法律鬥爭中撤回了其交叉競爭，留下了禁令的地位，該禁令已停止了其銷售額。

The legal battle between the SEC and Ripple continues to make headlines, with recent developments focusing on the status of the injunction that has halted institutional sales of XRP.

SEC和Ripple之間的法律鬥爭繼續成為頭條新聞，最近的事態發展著重於停止XRP機構銷售的禁令狀況。

While the possibility of the injunction being lifted could pave the way for Ripple to resume selling its token to institutional investors, legal experts are discussing the compliance conditions that would follow.

儘管解除禁令的可能性可能為波紋恢復將其代幣出售給機構投資者的道路鋪平了道路，但法律專家正在討論隨後的合規條件。

Weighing In On Ripple’s Options

權衡波紋的選擇

Among those offering their legal perspective is XRP attorney Bill Morgan, who addressed the matter on X, stating that even if the injunction were removed, Ripple would still need to alter its approach to institutional sales.

XRP律師比爾·摩根（Bill Morgan）在提供法律觀點的人中，他在X上解決此問題，並指出，即使取消了禁令，Ripple仍然需要改變其機構銷售的方法。

This adjustment is linked to a previous ruling by Judge Analisa Torres, who had determined that Ripple’s original method of selling XRP to institutions constituted an investment contract.

這種調整與Analisa Torres法官先前的裁決有關，後者確定Ripple將XRP出售給機構的原始方法構成了投資合同。

The implications of this ruling are still being debated among legal experts, with some arguing that Judge Analisa Torres’s ruling on how Judge Analisa Torres viewed Ripple’s token sales could pose difficulties for crypto firms selling their tokens to institutional investors.

該裁決的含義仍在法律專家之間進行辯論，一些人認為Analisa Torres法官對Analisa Torres法官如何看待Ripple的代幣銷售可能會給加密貨幣公司出售其代幣提供機構投資者而造成困難。

The uncertainty surrounding Ripple’s future in this area has sparked considerable discussion, especially following Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s confirmation that the company had abandoned its cross-appeal against the SEC.

圍繞Ripple在這一領域的未來的不確定性引發了廣泛的討論，尤其是在Ripple首席執行官Brad Garlinghouse的確認，該公司已經放棄了對SEC的交叉銷售。

While some believe that the lack of cross-appeal could lead to the lifting of the injunction and the resumption of institutional sales, others argue that the company would need to adjust its activities to comply with securities laws.

儘管有些人認為缺乏交叉競爭可能會導致禁令解除和恢復機構銷售，但其他人則認為該公司需要調整其活動以遵守證券法。

For instance, Rispoli explained that if Ripple were to sell XRP to a hedge fund, it would fall under the umbrella of a "private offering" and be legal. However, selling through an over-the-counter (OTC) desk to multiple investors wouldn’t be compliant.

例如，Rispoli解釋說，如果Ripple要將XRP出售給對沖基金，它將屬於“私人產品”的傘，並合法。但是，通過非處方（OTC）台向多個投資者出售並不合規。

"If the bastards weren't sued by the SEC for selling unregistered securities, would they be acting unlawfully? Interesting question on Friday morning. I'd love to hear thoughts. #law #legal #crypto #legaltech #fridaymorning thoughts," Rispoli stated.

“如果不是由SEC起訴的混蛋出售未註冊的證券，他們會在星期五早上進行非法行事嗎？有趣的問題。我很樂意聽到想法。

The legal drama continues to unfold, with experts like Morgan and Rispoli offering their insights into what could happen next. As the case progresses, the XRP community remains on edge, awaiting the implications of this landmark case on the broader crypto landscape.

法律戲劇繼續展開，摩根和里斯波利（Rispoli）等專家對接下來可能發生的事情提供了見解。隨著案件的進行，XRP社區仍處於邊緣狀態，等待著這一里程碑式案件對更廣泛的加密景觀的影響。