According to him, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could have been in a stronger position if it had targeted Ripples' sales or offers of XRP specifically. On the other hand, in his words, "I got the chance to evaluate SEC's response to Ripple's arguments properly, and I must remark that it needs certain 'important elements.'"

The Upbeat Report in the Middle of the Ripple Suit

In the same post on Twitter, bill went on to attack the SEC for conducting an ongoing general case against all transactions or offers of XRP for the past eight years, including those on secondary markets. Bill, who appears to be a legal specialist, discusses several holes that he found in the SEC's legal case against Ripple and explains why he thinks they should be exploited.

He is of the opinion that there are indications of potential flaws, particularly in light of the fact that the legal arguments presented by the SEC mischaracterize Ripple's attempt to misconstrue the term "investment contract" in relation to the pre-1933 blue sky legislation instances. Nevertheless, he brings up two very important issues that the SEC might possibly have. To begin, it's possible that Ripple is being naive when it uses the word "scheme."

Even though he received a lot of responses to his tweets, one particular message struck out. The following observation was made by John Deaton, who is the creator of CryproLaw. He stated that "the good news for Ripple in this litigation is that the SEC did not present any specific sales with contracts." In addition to this, he stated that "they weren't referring to any one transaction; rather, they were referring to all transactions." Therefore, I don't understand how this can be true."

Ripple further contends that the phrase "transaction or scheme" indicates that a court ought to have a more in-depth look into the environment in which the instrument is grounded. Despite this, the SEC asserts that Ripple has not identified any case law or precedent that supports their position.

In addition, the SEC asserts that Section 5 of the Securities Act makes it illegal to sell or make promises to sell assets that have not been registered. At the same time, on October 24, the two parties interested in the case were expected to have submitted versions of their opposing briefs that were made public with redactions.

John Deaton has earlier revealed that there would be 440 exhibitions open to the public on October 24. However, on November 21, both sides will submit a version of their reply briefs that has been redacted for public viewing.