Ripple’s Bold Overture to the SEC: A Tale of Stablecoins and Sensibility

by

In a move that might be deemed as audacious as a lady of high standing proposing her own marriage, Ripple has presented a follow-up missive to the SEC Crypto Task Force, beseeching them for greater clarity in the treatment of payment stablecoins, crypto asset non-securities, and tokenized securities under broker-dealer rules. The epistle, dated May 22, 2026, and disseminated by BankXRP on the platform X, hints at a broader campaign for regulatory lucidity concerning collateral treatment, custody requisites, and the question of whether on-chain records may serve as the definitive legal registry for tokenized assets.

This document, addressed to the SEC Crypto Task Force at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, is marked as a sequel to a prior tête-à-tête between Ripple and the task force. According to the letter, Ripple engaged with the group on March 20, 2026, to discourse upon “the treatment of payment stablecoins and tokenized securities under the net capital and customer protection rules, and potential next steps for broader guidance.” One can only imagine the gravity of such a meeting, akin to a ball where the fate of many a fortune hangs in the balance.

“We are submitting this response as a follow-up to several queries raised in our meeting,” Ripple penned in the visible portion of the letter, with an air of polite persistence. “The enclosed sections delineate our rationale and suggestions for the Task Force to provide clarity to the matters at hand. The response addresses the following:”

JUST IN: Ripple officially submitted a follow-up letter to the SEC Crypto Task Force on May 22, 2026

Here’s what they’re demanding:
Stablecoins treated as proper collateral
RLUSD haircut reduced to 0%
XRP & other non-securities get same treatment as BTC & ETH
…

– 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸XRP (@BankXRP) May 27, 2026

Ripple’s Entreaties to the SEC

The first matter of contention is the treatment of stablecoins as collateral. Ripple’s letter implores that Rule 15c3-1 be amended to elucidate how stablecoins may be applied on broker-dealer balance sheets. This rule, sitting at the heart of net capital requirements, renders the treatment of stablecoin collateral a matter of practical import for regulated intermediaries aspiring to handle tokenized instruments without incurring capital treatment that renders the endeavor uneconomical. One might say it is the financial equivalent of navigating a particularly tricky social engagement.

Ripple further beseeches the SEC to clarify the requirements for custodying clients’ stablecoins. The company proposes amending Rule 15c3-3, the customer protection rule, to define a new category termed “Qualified Payment Stablecoins.” The framing suggests Ripple is seeking a more defined regulatory niche for stablecoins employed in payments and settlement, rather than forcing them into antiquated categories that may not reflect their function in the crypto market structure. It is, in essence, a plea for recognition in a world that often prefers the familiar to the novel.

Another point of significance concerns crypto asset non-securities beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. The letter urges the SEC to clarify that “crypto asset non-securities aside from BTC and ETH can receive equivalent treatment,” citing the agency’s recently released guidance on the application of securities laws to crypto assets. Ripple specifically proposes revising Question 4 in the SEC’s FAQ relating to crypto asset activities to account for any non-securities that meet the “readily marketable” definition. This is a subtle yet pointed critique of a regulatory framework that might be accused of favoring the established over the emergent.

The language employed here is of no small consequence, as it challenges a narrow regulatory framework in which only BTC and ETH are treated as clearly eligible for certain forms of favorable or workable treatment. While the visible page does not explicitly name XRP in that section, the implication is as clear as a well-phrased declaration of intent. It is a move that could have significant ramifications for assets that issuers, exchanges, or broker-dealers may argue are non-securities and sufficiently liquid to be treated similarly under capital and customer protection analysis.

The letter also takes issue with the SEC’s treatment of stablecoin haircuts. Ripple asserts that it is providing analysis demonstrating that a 2% haircut for stablecoins “remains punitive,” and argues that “Stablecoins should have a 0% haircut” when there is a mint-burn relationship between the broker-dealer and issuer. For firms operating in tokenized settlement, this distinction could determine whether stablecoins are usable at scale as collateral or treated as carrying a capital cost that limits adoption. It is a financial nuance that could well decide the fortunes of many a venture.

The final issue addressed in the letter pertains to tokenized asset ownership. Ripple requests the SEC to clarify whether an off-chain or on-chain registry takes precedence in determining ownership and legally enforceable rights. Its proposed solution is straightforward: “Designate the on-chain registry as the single authoritative legal register,” which Ripple claims would eliminate “dual-registry ambiguity” in digital twin structures. It is a proposal that seeks to bring order to a realm where ambiguity can be as disruptive as a scandal in high society.

BankXRP framed the submission with a tone of assertive confidence, stating that Ripple was demanding stablecoins be treated as proper collateral, RLUSD receive a 0% haircut, XRP and other non-securities get the same treatment as BTC and ETH, and on-chain registries be recognized as the only legal record. “Ripple isn’t asking anymore. They’re telling,” the XRP community account wrote, with a boldness that might raise eyebrows in more traditional circles.

At the time of this report, XRP was trading at $1.3299, a figure that no doubt has many a speculator and investor alike watching with bated breath.

Read More

2026-05-27 23:11