It is not news that the ongoing XRP lawsuit has got the better of Ripple’s XRP token. Ripple CEO, Brad Garlinghouse recently questioned the SEC’s bias towards Ethereum, claiming that XRP would’ve been at the No. 2 position instead of ETH if it weren’t for the commission’s partial crackdown. Garlinghouse spoke at the DC Fintech Week virtual conference yesterday, arguing that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Ripple’s XRP as unregistered security while granting Ethereum a regulatory free pass, which in turn helped ETH shoot through the roof.

“Within the last few years, XRP was the second most valuable digital asset. As it became clear the SEC had given a hall pass to ETH, ETH obviously has kind of exploded and that clarity has helped.”

XRP secured the position of the second-largest crypto asset by market capitalization during the latter half of 2017. However, the token has dropped down to seventh place while Ethereum stands strong as No. 2. Furthermore, Garlinghouse claims that the SEC’s exclusively aggressive anti-crypto stance to allegedly protect the consumers is in fact anti-investors. Referring to the XRP lawsuit, Ripple CEO emphasizes that “nearly 50,000 U.S. people who hold XRP who are trying to sue the SEC for ‘protecting them’”.

Earlier this week, Attorney Deaton Filed a Letter Motion on behalf of the XRP Holders (Movants) that contended SEC’s extension request, with the main argument concerning the XRP holders’ frozen funds because of the consistent postponement of the lawsuit’s final verdict. During the ongoing bull run, XRP remains considerably bear because of the regulatory crackdown on Ripple. However, the court has overlooked the community’s concern and granted the extension explaining that in lieu of pending motions, extra time will only facilitate both parties to complete pending fact discovery and thoroughly prepare for upcoming expert depositions.

“The lack of liquidity within the United States, coupled with the mass de-listings prevents XRP Holders from trading, selling, transferring, or converting their XRP. It is because of this de facto in place seizure of their property that XRP Holders took the extraordinary step to seek intervention as defendants… Any delay in the underlying action marks yet another day XRP Holders do not have access to their funds.”, wrote Deaton.