In a recent development that has captured the attention of the cryptocurrency community, Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple, has lashed out at former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Jay Clayton, accusing him of abusing his power during his tenure. The dispute stems from Clayton’s recent interview where he discussed the regulatory landscape and hinted at the SEC’s alleged abuse of power, sparking a fiery response from the Ripple CEO.

Garlinghouse took to social media to express his astonishment at Clayton’s remarks, labeling them as “shocking” and pointing to what he sees as glaring hypocrisy. The core of his frustration lies in the fact that Clayton, during his tenure as SEC Chair, oversaw the initiation of a lawsuit against Ripple and its top executives, including Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen. This lawsuit, which has garnered significant attention, has been widely criticized for its perceived frivolity and the assertion that the claims against Ripple were “baseless,” a sentiment also echoed by Larsen.

The controversy deepens with the emergence of the “ETH Gate” saga, suggesting that under Clayton’s leadership, the SEC may have had ulterior motives for pursuing action against Ripple and its executives. Notably, pro-XRP legal expert Fred Rispoli hinted at Clayton’s potential abuse of power, raising questions about the SEC’s credibility if the former Chair were to testify in the Commission’s case against Ripple.

While Brad Garlinghouse’s public rebuke of Jay Clayton has made headlines, he is not alone in his critique. John Deaton, another pro-XRP legal expert, has joined the chorus of voices accusing Clayton of misconduct. Deaton went a step further, describing Clayton as a “total fraud.” This harsh judgment came in response to a clip from the 2021 DACOM Summit in which Clayton seemed to distance himself from the SEC’s enforcement actions, suggesting that the decisions to initiate lawsuits were made by his staff.

Deaton, however, vehemently refutes this notion, asserting that Clayton wielded significant influence and control as the SEC Chair. He argued that Clayton had the power to halt the lawsuit against Ripple, even on his last day in office, if he had chosen to do so. Deaton pointed to Clayton’s recommendation to One River to make a substantial bet on Bitcoin and Ethereum, further insinuating that Clayton may have had ulterior motives during his tenure.

The lawyer also raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given that Clayton’s former law firm represented ConsenSys, a company owned by Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin. Deaton contended that Clayton should have recused himself from voting on enforcement actions against his law firm’s primary competitor to maintain the integrity of the regulatory process.

This escalating feud within the cryptocurrency and legal community highlights the contentious nature of the ongoing legal battle between Ripple and the SEC. The implications of these allegations and counter-allegations are far-reaching, affecting the credibility of regulatory bodies, the cryptocurrency market, and the trust placed in high-ranking officials.

Ripple’s Garlinghouse has long maintained that the SEC’s actions against his company are unwarranted and that XRP, the cryptocurrency associated with Ripple, should not be classified as a security. He contends that the SEC’s lawsuit has caused significant damage to Ripple and the broader XRP community, resulting in lost business opportunities and market value.

In light of these allegations and responses, it becomes crucial to delve deeper into the issues surrounding the Ripple-SEC legal battle and the actions of Jay Clayton during his tenure as SEC Chair. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key events, implications, and the broader context of the feud between Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, Jay Clayton, and the SEC.

Ripple vs. SEC: The Ongoing Legal Battle

The ongoing legal dispute between Ripple and the SEC centers on the classification of XRP, the digital currency developed by Ripple, as a security. The SEC alleges that Ripple, Garlinghouse, and Larsen conducted an unregistered securities offering, while the defendants argue that XRP is a digital currency akin to Bitcoin and Ethereum and should not be treated as a security.

The outcome of this lawsuit has significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry as a whole. If the court were to classify XRP as a security, it could set a precedent for other cryptocurrencies, potentially subjecting them to similar regulatory oversight.

The legal battle, which commenced during Jay Clayton’s tenure as SEC Chair, has been fraught with controversy. Critics argue that the SEC’s case against Ripple is unjust and has placed undue pressure on the cryptocurrency market. Clayton’s recent remarks about the regulatory landscape and the perceived abuse of power during his tenure have fueled the ongoing feud.

Clayton’s Comments and Garlinghouse’s Response

In a recent interview, Jay Clayton shared his views on the current regulatory landscape and alluded to the abuse of power by regulatory agencies. These comments did not sit well with Brad Garlinghouse, who promptly responded with a scathing rebuke.

Garlinghouse’s response, posted on social media, was characterized by its directness and the accusation of hypocrisy. He expressed astonishment that someone like Clayton, who presided over the SEC during the initiation of the lawsuit against Ripple, could publicly discuss abuse of power. This reaction underscores the deep-seated tensions surrounding the legal battle.

Allegations of Abuse of Power

The heart of the matter lies in the allegation of abuse of power within the SEC during Jay Clayton’s leadership. Brad Garlinghouse contends that the lawsuit against Ripple and its executives was baseless and frivolous, with significant repercussions for the cryptocurrency market and XRP holders.

Additionally, the “ETH Gate” saga has raised concerns about the motivations behind the SEC’s actions. Pro-XRP legal expert Fred Rispoli, among others, has suggested that Clayton’s conduct during his tenure may have compromised the SEC’s credibility. Rispoli raised the prospect of Clayton being called to testify in the Commission’s case against Ripple, further adding to the complexity of the situation.

John Deaton’s Scathing Critique

John Deaton, another prominent legal expert in the cryptocurrency community, has not held back in his criticism of Jay Clayton. He labeled Clayton as a “total fraud” in response to a clip from the DACOM Summit in 2021. In that clip, Clayton seemed to distance himself from the SEC’s enforcement actions, implying that the decisions were made by his staff.

However, Deaton strongly disputes this assertion, emphasizing Clayton’s significant authority and influence as the SEC Chair. He argued that Clayton could have prevented the lawsuit against Ripple if he had chosen to do so, even on his last day in office. Deaton further raised questions about Clayton’s recommendation to One River to make a substantial bet on Bitcoin and Ethereum, insinuating potential conflicts of interest.

Conflict of Interest Concerns

One of the central issues raised in this feud is the potential conflict of interest during Clayton’s tenure as SEC Chair. John Deaton pointed out that Clayton’s former law firm represented ConsenSys, a company owned by Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin