Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse says his company holds a substantial amount of XRP and cares deeply about the token’s future, but he draws a hard line when it comes to control. Speaking at the KU School of Business, Garlinghouse explained why he believes XRP was never the kind of asset the SEC accused it of being.
No company, no control
Garlinghouse says XRP looks more like Bitcoin than a security tied to a company. Unlike Ripple’s own shares, which came from private funding rounds in 2012, 2015, and 2016, XRP carries no ownership stake in the business. “There’s Ripple, cares about a lot. We own a lot of XRP, but we can’t control it because it’s open source,” he said.
That distinction sat at the center of the SEC’s 2020 lawsuit, which accused Ripple of selling unregistered securities. Garlinghouse pushed back hard on the characterization, arguing that XRP functions nothing like traditional company stock. “That’s owning Apple stock,” he said of what a real security looks like. “It wasn’t even close.”
Meetings that never raised a red flag
Garlinghouse met the SEC four times between 2017 and 2019 without a lawyer once. He said he saw no need for legal representation at the time, since he was simply explaining how Ripple’s technology worked. Not once, he said, did anyone at the agency warn him that XRP might be classified as a security.
That silence became a sore point once the lawsuit landed. The SEC sued both Ripple and Garlinghouse personally in 2020, tied to XRP he had sold as an individual. He called the timing distasteful, and even unethical, especially after the agency later offered to drop his personal case while continuing to pursue the company. The SEC agreed to drop his own case but not the one filed against Ripple itself.
A costly fight, and a shift after 2020
That four year legal fight with the SEC cost Ripple roughly $150 million. Ripple ultimately won the case, though the agency’s leadership at the time signaled plans to appeal. Garlinghouse said the environment shifted after a new SEC chair took office, one he described as far more constructive toward the crypto industry.
He tied the entire episode back to a broader argument he has made for years: that most people in crypto want clear rules, not a fight after the fact.
