Bloomberg Slammed for Misleading XRP Headline; XRP Army Reacts

Ripple’s XRP token has been the subject of intense scrutiny, caught in a whirlwind of legal actions, misconceptions, and a fight for factual accuracy. Recent surprising developments have ignited a clash between media giant Bloomberg and the XRP community.

What really happened? Let’s dive in!

Bloomberg’s Blunder – A Headline Gone Wrong

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently asked a federal judge for permission regarding Ripple’s XRP token, leading Bloomberg to publish a headline stating, “SEC moves to appeal Ripple Ruling that XRP is not a Security.” But is that truly the case?

The headline was immediately met with backlash. Pro XRP lawyer John Deaton and CryptoLawUS were quick to correct what they termed as demonstrably false information.

John Deaton, a respected legal advocate for XRP, took to Twitter to express his disappointment with Bloomberg’s reporting. His concerns reached beyond minor inaccuracies; they touched on essential facts that could significantly impact the financial markets.

The case document explicitly stated that the SEC did not seek appellate review of any holding regarding XRP. The SEC’s request was only for an expedited appeal, not a motion to appeal anything related to the XRP token not being a security Deaton highlighted the importance of getting the terms right and accused Bloomberg of publishing a false story.

The Intricacies of the Case – What’s Really Going On?

A $100M lawsuit fought over 2.5 years had established that only offers and sales of XRP could be securities. The distinction between the token and sales was a core fight of the case, and this battle was won by Ripple.

The SEC’s recent filing was a request for an expedited appeal concerning specific decisions by Judge Torres. It was not related to the XRP token being a security. This nuance, although complex, is a critical aspect that had been misrepresented by Bloomberg.

CTO David Schwartz Adds Clarity

David Schwartz, the Chief Technology Officer of Ripple, acknowledged that the SEC had indeed sought certification, a form of permission to appeal. His input lent credence to the fact that the SEC’s request vastly differed from Bloomberg’s portrayal.

With big news media like Bloomberg stumbling, and warriors like John Deaton and CryptoLawUS stepping in, the fight for truth and fairness continues. The war is not won, nor is the story complete.

Should the article be retracted? Moreover, is an apology due? Let us know what you think.