尽管最近进展，XRP诉讼仍然对Ripple重新启动机构销售的能力蒙上阴影。

Ripple最近在与SEC的法律斗争中撤回了其交叉竞争，留下了禁令的地位，该禁令已停止了其销售额。

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之间的法律斗争继续成为头条新闻，最近的事态发展着重于停止XRP机构销售的禁令状况。

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.

尽管解除禁令的可能性可能为波纹恢复将其代币出售给机构投资者的道路铺平了道路，但法律专家正在讨论随后的合规条件。

Weighing In On Ripple’s Options

权衡波纹的选择

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律师比尔·摩根（Bill Morgan）在提供法律观点的人中，他在X上解决此问题，并指出，即使取消了禁令，Ripple仍然需要改变其机构销售的方法。

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.

这种调整与Analisa Torres法官先前的裁决有关，后者确定Ripple将XRP出售给机构的原始方法构成了投资合同。

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.

该裁决的含义仍在法律专家之间进行辩论，一些人认为Analisa Torres法官对Analisa Torres法官如何看待Ripple的代币销售可能会给加密货币公司出售其代币提供机构投资者而造成困难。

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.

围绕Ripple在这一领域的未来的不确定性引发了广泛的讨论，尤其是在Ripple首席执行官Brad Garlinghouse的确认，该公司已经放弃了对SEC的交叉销售。

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.

尽管有些人认为缺乏交叉竞争可能会导致禁令解除和恢复机构销售，但其他人则认为该公司需要调整其活动以遵守证券法。

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解释说，如果Ripple要将XRP出售给对冲基金，它将属于“私人产品”的伞，并合法。但是，通过非处方（OTC）台向多个投资者出售并不合规。

"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起诉的混蛋出售未注册的证券，他们会在星期五早上进行非法行事吗？有趣的问题。我很乐意听到想法。

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.

法律戏剧继续展开，摩根和里斯波利（Rispoli）等专家对接下来可能发生的事情提供了见解。随着案件的进行，XRP社区仍处于边缘状态，等待着这一里程碑式案件对更广泛的加密景观的影响。