Ripple’s token sales without disclosure

Ripple Labs, the San Francisco fintech firm behind XRP, has long promoted itself as a pioneer of blockchain-based cross-border payments. While Bitcoin aimed to be digital gold and Ethereum to be a world computer, Ripple pitched XRP as the bridge currency for banks and financial institutions.

But Ripple’s strategy wasn’t just about partnerships and software—it was also about selling XRP tokens. Between 2013 and 2020, Ripple raised over $1.3 billion by selling XRP to retail investors and institutions. Unlike a traditional IPO or securities offering, however, these sales were conducted without the disclosures regulators expect in capital markets.

The resulting controversy culminated in one of the most consequential regulatory showdowns in crypto history: the SEC v. Ripple Labs lawsuit.

This article explores Ripple’s undisclosed token sales, the SEC’s allegations, Ripple’s defense, the court’s rulings, and what this all means for the broader digital asset ecosystem.

1. The Birth of XRP and Ripple’s Strategy

Ripple (originally OpenCoin) launched XRP in 2012. Unlike Bitcoin, XRP was pre-mined: 100 billion tokens created at inception. Ripple and its founders retained around 80 billion, planning to release them gradually.

The company’s vision:

Position XRP as a liquidity solution for banks and payment providers.
Fund Ripple’s operations by selling XRP.
Create demand through ecosystem partnerships.

From day one, however, critics argued that pre-mining and company-controlled distribution blurred the line between a decentralized asset and a corporate security.

2. Token Sales Without Traditional Disclosure

Ripple sold XRP in two primary ways:

Programmatic Sales: Automated sales through exchanges, targeting retail investors.
Institutional Sales: Large, negotiated sales to hedge funds, market makers, and investment firms, often at discounted rates.

The controversy:

No prospectus or registration statements filed.
No disclosure of how proceeds would be used.
Institutional buyers sometimes received preferential terms, information not available to the general public.

In traditional finance, such practices would trigger securities law obligations. Ripple insisted XRP was a currency or utility token, not a security, and therefore exempt.

3. The SEC Lawsuit (2020)

In December 2020, the SEC filed suit against Ripple Labs, CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and co-founder Chris Larsen.

Key allegations:

Ripple raised $1.3 billion through unregistered securities offerings.
XRP was marketed in a way that made investors expect profits tied to Ripple’s efforts.
Ripple’s failure to disclose financial and operational details deprived investors of protections afforded by securities law.

The SEC’s legal weapon was the Howey Test, used since 1946 to determine whether something is an “investment contract” and thus a security.

4. Ripple’s Defense

Ripple responded aggressively, arguing:

XRP is a digital asset, not a security. Like Bitcoin and Ether, it is used for payments and liquidity, not as an equity stake.
Global regulatory recognition: No major foreign regulator had classified XRP as a security.
SEC ambiguity: Ripple claimed the SEC failed to provide clear guidance before bringing the case.
Innovation risk: Enforcing securities law in this way could drive blockchain innovation out of the U.S.

Ripple also highlighted that retail buyers on exchanges had no contractual relationship with Ripple, undermining the SEC’s case.

5. The Court’s Split Decision (2023)

In July 2023, a federal judge delivered a nuanced ruling:

Institutional Sales: XRP sales directly to institutions were securities. These buyers had clear expectations of profit based on Ripple’s promotional efforts.
Programmatic Exchange Sales: XRP sold through exchanges to retail investors were not securities, since those buyers lacked the same expectation of Ripple’s managerial efforts.
Other Distributions: XRP given to employees or developers was not deemed securities.

This ruling marked a partial victory for Ripple, narrowing the SEC’s claims but validating concerns over undisclosed institutional deals.

6. The Problem of Non-Disclosure

Ripple’s undisclosed token sales highlighted several issues:

Information Asymmetry: Institutional investors may have enjoyed discounted rates or lock-up agreements unknown to retail buyers.
Market Impact: Bulk token sales without disclosure may have pressured XRP prices, harming small investors.
Use of Proceeds: Investors lacked transparency about how Ripple deployed billions raised from XRP sales—operational costs, partnerships, or founder compensation.
Investor Protections: Without securities law disclosures, buyers couldn’t assess risk properly.

In short, Ripple used token sales as corporate financing—but without the rules that govern traditional fundraising.

7. Ripple’s Settlement Risks and Penalties

After the 2023 ruling, Ripple still faced potential penalties over institutional sales. Analysts estimated fines could range from hundreds of millions to over $1 billion.

The case also raised questions about:

Whether Ripple must register future institutional sales.
Whether XRP can be sold to U.S. investors at all.
If Ripple would need to restructure its token issuance practices globally.

8. Implications for the Crypto Industry

Ripple’s case set a precedent with wide-ranging consequences:

Token Sales Are Context-Dependent: Programmatic retail sales may escape securities classification, but institutional deals are risky.
Exchanges at Risk: Platforms listing tokens that regulators later classify as securities could face enforcement action.
Future ICOs and Token Issuers: Projects must weigh disclosure obligations carefully; “utility token” defenses are weaker now.
Regulatory Pressure: The case reinforced calls for comprehensive U.S. crypto legislation.

9. Critics vs. Supporters

Critics argue:

Ripple effectively conducted an unregistered IPO, enriching insiders while exposing retail investors to undisclosed risks.
Lack of disclosure eroded trust in crypto markets.
Preferential institutional deals were unfair to retail buyers.

Supporters counter:

Ripple was unfairly singled out while other tokens escaped scrutiny.
The SEC’s “regulation by enforcement” stifles innovation.
XRP continues to serve genuine utility in cross-border payments.

10. Ripple Today (2024–2025)

Despite the legal battle, Ripple has endured:

XRP remains a top-10 cryptocurrency by market cap.
RippleNet powers payment corridors across Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Ripple participates in CBDC pilots with central banks, leveraging its technology even as XRP’s regulatory status remains debated.

The company is financially strong, thanks to its vast XRP holdings and global partnerships.

11. Lessons for Investors and Entrepreneurs

Ripple’s saga highlights several takeaways:

Disclosure Matters: Selling tokens as a funding mechanism carries obligations—transparency builds trust.
Institutional Deals Invite Scrutiny: Bulk discounted sales are most likely to be deemed securities.
Regulatory Ambiguity Isn’t a Shield: Lack of clear rules doesn’t exempt projects from enforcement.
Innovation vs. Compliance: Long-term success requires balancing vision with legal obligations.

Conclusion

Ripple’s token sales without disclosure transformed into one of the defining regulatory battles in crypto. By raising billions through undisclosed institutional and retail sales, Ripple forced courts to answer the question: When is a token a security?

The answer, at least for now, is contextual. Retail programmatic sales may not meet the Howey Test, but institutional deals without disclosures often do.

Ripple survived the lawsuit, and XRP remains central to the crypto ecosystem. But the case underscores a crucial truth: in finance—traditional or digital—transparency isn’t optional. Without it, token issuers risk not only investor confidence but also the wrath of regulators.

ALSO READ: Shiva Global Q1 Results FY26: Profit Soars 167% YoY, Revenue Falls