The Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Ripple Labs have decided to end their long-running legal disagreement. Both sides have asked a court to dismiss their appeals in the case about whether the XRP token is a security. This means a previous ruling from a judge in 2023 will now be final.

The judge had decided that XRP sold by Ripple on public markets was not a security, but XRP sold to big investors was. Ripple was ordered to pay a fine of $125 million. The SEC appealed this decision, and Ripple filed its own appeal in response. Now, both have agreed to drop these appeals, and each will pay their own legal costs. This agreement brings an end to a legal battle that started in late 2020. The news of this settlement has been linked to a recent increase in the price of XRP.

Original article (sec) (xrp) (security) (appeals) (judge) (investors) (fine)

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It reports on a past event and a settlement, but does not provide any steps or guidance for readers to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides basic facts about the SEC and Ripple Labs' legal dispute and its resolution. It explains the judge's ruling that XRP is not a security on public markets but is when sold to large investors, and the resulting fine. However, it lacks deeper educational content. It does not explain *why* XRP might be considered a security in certain contexts, the legal basis for the judge's decision, or the broader implications of such rulings for the cryptocurrency market.

Personal Relevance: The article has limited personal relevance for a "normal person" unless they are directly invested in XRP or the cryptocurrency market. While it mentions a price increase linked to the settlement, it doesn't offer advice on investment decisions or explain how this legal outcome might affect the average consumer's financial landscape beyond potential market fluctuations.

Public Service Function: This article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a legal settlement between two entities and does not offer warnings, safety advice, or tools for public use. It is purely informational news reporting.

Practicality of Advice: As there is no advice given, this point is not applicable.

Long-Term Impact: The long-term impact of this settlement is not clearly explained for the average reader. While it resolves a significant legal battle in the crypto space, the article doesn't elaborate on how this might shape future regulations, investor protections, or the broader adoption of digital assets in a way that a normal person can easily understand or act upon.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is unlikely to have a significant emotional or psychological impact on a normal person. It reports a factual event without employing language designed to evoke strong emotions like fear, hope, or anxiety.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use clickbait or ad-driven words. The language is neutral and informative, focusing on reporting the facts of the settlement.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more value. It could have explained the legal definition of a security and how it applies to cryptocurrencies, offered resources for understanding cryptocurrency regulations, or provided context on how to research the financial health and legal standing of cryptocurrency projects. For instance, readers could be directed to official SEC publications or reputable financial news sources that offer deeper analysis of such legal cases.

The text uses the phrase "long-running legal disagreement." This wording makes the disagreement sound like a simple argument that has gone on for a while. It hides the fact that this was a serious legal fight with a government agency. It makes the situation seem less important than it was.

The text states, "This agreement brings an end to a legal battle that started in late 2020." This sentence focuses on the end of the fight. It does not mention the details of the fight or the reasons it started. This makes the ending seem like a simple resolution.

The text mentions, "The news of this settlement has been linked to a recent increase in the price of XRP." This suggests a cause-and-effect relationship without providing evidence. It implies that the settlement directly caused the price increase. This could be misleading if other factors were also involved.

The text conveys a sense of resolution and perhaps relief through the description of the SEC and Ripple Labs ending their legal disagreement. The phrase "long-running legal disagreement" highlights the duration and likely strain of the conflict, suggesting that its conclusion brings a positive shift. The action of both sides asking a court to "dismiss their appeals" signals a mutual decision to move forward, which can be interpreted as a calming of tensions. This agreement to "end their legal battle" and "drop these appeals" aims to inform the reader that a significant and potentially stressful situation has been resolved. The mention of each party paying their own legal costs reinforces the idea of a mutually agreed-upon conclusion, rather than a victory for one side.

The writer uses the information about the judge's ruling and the subsequent appeals to build a narrative of a complex situation reaching a definitive end. The detail that the judge decided XRP sold on public markets was not a security, while XRP sold to big investors was, and that Ripple was ordered to pay a fine, sets the stage for the appeals. By stating that both sides have now agreed to drop these appeals, the text guides the reader to see this as a final, settled matter. This approach helps to build trust by presenting a clear outcome to a previously uncertain legal situation. The connection made between the settlement and the "recent increase in the price of XRP" introduces an element of excitement or positive anticipation for those interested in the cryptocurrency.

The writer persuades the reader by framing the end of the legal battle as a significant event. The use of phrases like "long-running legal disagreement" and "legal battle" emphasizes the intensity and duration of the conflict, making its conclusion appear more impactful. By stating that the agreement "brings an end to a legal battle," the writer is highlighting the finality and closure of the situation. This is a way of managing the reader's perception, suggesting that a period of uncertainty is over. The text does not explicitly use overly emotional language, but the very act of reporting on the resolution of a major legal dispute, especially one with financial implications like the price of XRP, inherently carries a sense of importance and potential positive change for those involved or observing. The writer is not using personal stories or extreme comparisons, but rather focusing on the factual unfolding of events to create a sense of closure and potential benefit.