Top Tweets for #ChaiLink

🚨🚨🚨 $XRP holders, CLARITY stalled, but XRP’s regulatory path did not. That is the part of Paul Atkins’ statement that I think matters most. A lot of people treated September 15 like everything depended on one Senate vote. CLARITY advances = progress. CLARITY fails = back to uncertainty. But Atkins already explained that the SEC is not waiting around. Congress is still the preferred route because legislation can make the rules more durable. But if Congress takes longer, the SEC and CFTC can keep building the framework under the authority they already have. For $XRP, that hits differently now. The agencies have already gone much further than simply saying they are “crypto friendly.” In their March 17 interpretation, XRP was explicitly listed as a digital commodity alongside BTC, ETH, SOL, XLM, HBAR, LINK and AVAX. So the big question is no longer just: What is XRP? The next question is: How do banks, brokers, custodians and financial institutions actually operate around it? How do they custody it? Trade it? Finance it? Build products around it? Connect it with tokenized markets? That is where Paul Atkins’ comments become much bigger than one quote. The SEC already proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on August 18. That proposal starts building rules around how non-security crypto assets and investment contracts can interact. This is the exact kind of distinction XRP spent years fighting to get recognized. The asset itself can be separate from the way it is sold. In my opinion, the progression now looks very different: court clarity → agency clarity → operating rules → eventual statutory clarity That is why I do not see CLARITY’s September 15 setback as the end of the XRP regulatory story. Paul Atkins basically made one thing clear: Washington can keep moving even before Congress finishes the job. And for $XRP, that means the conversation is shifting from “Is XRP allowed?” to: “How big can the regulated market around XRP become?” $XRP