17-4-2025 – The saga between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is nearing its denouement, with profound implications not only for Ripple’s trajectory but also for the broader landscape of cryptocurrency regulation. The resolution of this high-stakes dispute could usher in much-needed clarity for the industry, yet a final obstacle looms large.
Crypto lawyer James Farrell has shed light on the intricate manoeuvres unfolding behind closed doors. Ripple is not merely seeking a settlement to draw a line under the dispute; it is also pressing Judge Analisa Torres for an “indicative ruling.” This judicial clarification would affirm Ripple’s ability to sell XRP privately without legal repercussions—a linchpin for the company’s ambition to launch an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and list its shares on U.S. stock exchanges. Farrell underscores that without this ruling, Ripple’s prospects for going public in the near term are all but extinguished, rendering the indicative ruling as critical as any potential settlement.
The XRP price, meanwhile, is under intense scrutiny from traders, buoyed by optimism that a resolution could ignite a significant rally. Over the past week, XRP has surged 20%, reclaiming the $2 mark, which analysts now view as a potential springboard for further gains. Analyst Maelius is particularly bullish, noting that XRP’s price action on longer timeframes exudes resilience, especially after rebounding from the 50-week Exponential Moving Average—a level that has historically heralded substantial upward moves. He posits that XRP may be entering the fifth and final phase of an Elliott Wave pattern, carrying a 35% probability of catapulting the price to $10.
Yet, the path to resolution remains fraught with potential delays. Farrell cautions that even if Ripple submits a settlement proposal alongside its request for an indicative ruling—whether jointly or independently—the process could stretch over six months, assuming the SEC cooperates. Should the agency prove recalcitrant or sluggish in its response, the timeline could extend further. If Judge Torres accedes to revising her prior ruling, the appeal could swiftly conclude. However, a refusal would likely propel the case back to the appellate court, potentially deferring a final verdict until early 2027.