Ripple（主要是）与美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的长期战斗中取得了胜利

由于该案没有晋升到高等法院，因此Analisa Torres法官的原始地方法院裁决（著名地区分了XRP向机构投资者和交易所的销售额进行区分）尚未确立具有约束力的先例。

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.

经过四年的法律斗争，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）撤销了针对Ripple的诉讼。该案始于2019年12月，当时SEC起诉Ripple据称进行了一项未注册的，13亿美元的令牌产品。在整个案例中，SEC努力定义加密代币并将现有证券法应用于快速发展的技术。

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.

尽管如此，此案并不会前进到高等法院，而肛门法官最初的地方法院裁决是最终裁决。这意味着她的决定不会为其他案件设定有约束力的先例。

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.

尽管此案已经结束，但它使行业内部人士感到案件可能进一步发展。地方法院一级的案件通常会向巡回上诉法院提出上诉，为该特定巡回法院设定法律先例。

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，作为和解的一部分，双方同意放弃其上诉，这意味着托雷斯法官的原始决定不会为任何特定巡回赛设定有约束力的先例。

“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的法律顾问Charly Ho说：“挑战是定居点通常是机密的。因此，我们可能不会找到清晰的行业成员寻求。”

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.

该案始于SEC起诉Ripple，据称将XRP代币出售给机构投资者而没有注册这些产品，违反了1933年《美国证券法》第5条的规定。托雷斯法官在某种理子中裁定这些销售确实是机构供应，并且应该已注册。但是，她裁定XRP在交易所上的销售不是机构产品，也不需要注册。

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.

该裁决的这一部分是波纹的胜利，因为SEC认为，无论投资者是谁，XRP的所有销售都应该已经注册。托雷斯法官还裁定，SEC未能充分通知公众有关被视为证券的代币类型。

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.

尽管有这样的裁决，但此案仍可以继续。双方计划向第一巡回上诉法院上诉部分。 SEC计划上诉托雷斯法官的裁决，该裁决未向公众提供有关被视为证券的代币类型的充分通知。

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.

同时，Ripple计划上诉托雷斯法官的裁决，即XRP将三个XRP销售给机构投资者，应该已在SEC登记。但是，经过数月的法律战斗，SEC宣布将其撤销对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.

作为和解协议的一部分，双方同意放弃计划上诉。 SEC还同意支付一部分Ripple的法律费用。

“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.

“这是SEC的部分胜利，是波纹的部分胜利；然后，SEC将对不利于此的决定提出上诉，然后Ripple将对不利的决定的决定提出上诉。但是，SEC现在已经撤销了Ripple的诉求，并说出了ripple的一部分，因为这是在诉讼中的一部分，而这是在诉讼中的一部分。

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.

此案对美国的其他加密货币公司具有影响，因为它可能为如何制定代币产品的制定先例，以及托雷斯法官的决定真正带来的法律权重。

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

香港Web3协会联合主席Joshua Chu说：“就法律发展而言，这是一个错过的机会。”

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.

该案也出现在SEC似乎正在摆脱美国加密监管早期阶段的执法策略的旋转。近几个月来，监管机构已开始与行业利益相关者更加紧密地互动，以制定明确的新兴行业道路规则。

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.

加密企业的反应混合反应遇到了这一战略的转变，其中一些公司仍在从SEC的积极诉讼中撤出。

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.

今年早些时候，SEC起诉了主要的加密交易所Coinbase和较小的Exchange Gemini，据称是作为未注册的交易所运营的，未能注册其令牌产品。这两种情况仍在进行中。

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.

该案也对更广泛的法律格局有影响，随着在欧盟和香港的新监管框架引入新的监管框架，该案件正在迅速发展。欧盟在加密资产（MICA）法规中的市场旨在标准化该地区运营的加密货币公司的规则，而香港则将自己定位为Web3公司的全球枢纽。

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.

这些发展共同表明，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）针对Ripple的最后一章也可能标志着加密法的新时代的开始，该法律是由合作与协作而不是诉讼和不确定性定义的。

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

为了进一步讨论此案的含义，杂志会见了来自全球的法律专家：美国的Rikka的Charly Ho，欧洲的Digital＆Analogue Partners的Yuriy Brisov，以及香港Web3协会Joshua Chu的共同主席。他们一起解开了Ripple的“胜利”对加密法的真正含义，以及该行业是否更接近