Wild SEC Lawsuit Theory: What If XRP Case Is about Protecting Banks from Losing Billions in Fees

A recent tweet from prominent crypto commentator “All Things XRP” has shed light on a contentious theory regarding the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) high-profile lawsuit against Ripple Labs. The post challenges the prevailing narrative that the lawsuit, filed in December 2020, was purely a matter of regulatory enforcement aimed at investor protection. Instead, it proposes that the lawsuit may have been strategically timed and executed to delay XRP’s rise as a low-cost, high-efficiency financial infrastructure that posed a direct threat to traditional banking institutions and SWIFT’s global payments network . WILD SEC LAWSUIT THEORY. What if the SEC’s case against Ripple wasn’t about investor protection… but about protecting banks from losing billions in fees? Let’s follow the money, the timing, and the silence. You decide. pic.twitter.com/l1z25fjLsu — All Things XRP (@XRP_investing) April 15, 2025 XRP’s Disruption and the Financial Threat to SWIFT The theory centers on several points, beginning with the SEC’s decision to sue Ripple and label XRP as an unregistered security. Following the announcement, XRP’s value plummeted by 66% in a single day, and Ripple lost significant business partnerships while exchanges began delisting the asset. At the time, XRP was facilitating approximately $70 billion in cross-border transactions every quarter, with each transaction costing just a few cents. This cost-efficiency sharply contrasted with traditional SWIFT wire transfers, which reportedly incurred fees between $20 and $50 per transaction, often accompanied by settlement delays stretching over several days. The Timing of the Lawsuit and the Role of Key Officials The tweet draws attention to the lawsuit timing, which was filed only days before then-SEC Chairman Jay Clayton resigned. It also highlights Clayton’s previous professional ties to major financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Barclays, through his former law firm. The commentator notes that Clayton’s wife was employed by Goldman Sachs and claims that various sources detailing these connections have been removed from the internet. According to “All Things XRP,” the SEC’s enforcement action halted Ripple’s progress just as it was gaining significant traction. MoneyGram, which had partnered with Ripple for cross-border payments, suspended its use of XRP shortly after the lawsuit. Meanwhile, SWIFT began exploring blockchain-based settlement technology, with pilots reportedly starting in 2022. The implication is that the lawsuit created a window for traditional institutions to develop their blockchain initiatives without being disrupted by XRP’s rapid scaling. We are on twitter, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) July 15, 2023 Comparisons to Ethereum and the Issue of Regulatory Consistency The post also questions why XRP faced intense regulatory scrutiny while Ethereum’s 2014 ICO, which bore structural similarities, was effectively cleared by the SEC. Former SEC official William Hinman publicly stated that Ethereum was not a security, despite allegedly receiving financial compensation from a law firm connected to Ethereum-related enterprises during his time at the SEC. Ripple, for its part, continued to fight the lawsuit, ultimately spending over $200 million in legal expenses. In July 2023, a judge ruled that XRP’s sales on secondary exchanges did not constitute securities transactions. The news sent XRP’s price up 73% in one day. However, “All Things XRP” said by that time, the damage had already been done. Between 2020 and 2023, XRP was largely absent from U.S. trading platforms, and many institutions opted not to engage with it, effectively delaying its adoption during a critical window for financial innovation. A Shift in Political Tone and the Settlement Outcome All Things XRP presents a scenario in which the lawsuit settles for $50 million under a new SEC chair appointed by President Trump. Also, the commentator suggests that the timing and intensity of the lawsuit under the Biden administration may have had more to do with protecting financial incumbents than safeguarding retail investors. According to the thread, XRP was never eliminated—it was delayed. The argument concludes that this delay is to protect the profits of legacy banking institutions and payment systems like SWIFT. With SWIFT now handling around $5 trillion per day in transactions, the stakes in maintaining its dominance were considerable. The tweet ends on a forward-looking note, suggesting that those same institutions are now beginning to embrace XRP’s underlying utility, possibly setting the stage for broader institutional adoption soon. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Wild SEC Lawsuit Theory: What If XRP Case Is about Protecting Banks from Losing Billions in Fees appeared first on Times Tabloid .