Ripple’s May 29, 2024 court filing says its current ODL-linked XRP sales do not include OTC-style discounts to sophisticated counterparties, narrowing one of the most repeated claims around the SEC case. The verified record supports a filing-based conclusion about Ripple XRP sales discounts, but it does not support the stronger headline framing that Ripple CTO David Schwartz personally used his “bad logic” critique to make that exact point.
WHAT TO KNOW
- May 29, 2024: Ripple’s reply letter, ECF No. 968, says current XRP sales tied to ODL do not include discount terms offered to sophisticated counterparties.
- Model shift: The same filing says Ripple is no longer selling XRP through OTC transactions with the characteristics the court treated as Institutional Sales.
- Attribution gap: The available evidence does not show a primary-source Schwartz statement linking his “bad logic” wording to the no-discounts claim.
Ripple’s filing draws a line between current ODL sales and past institutional contracts
The key document is Ripple’s May 29, 2024 remedies-stage reply letter, filed as ECF No. 968. In that submission, Ripple says its current XRP sales for On-Demand Liquidity do not include the OTC-contract features, including discounts to sophisticated counterparties, that were associated with earlier institutional transactions.
The filing also says Ripple is no longer selling XRP through OTC transactions with the characteristics the court identified as Institutional Sales. That matters because Ripple is not simply disputing past findings, it is arguing that its present sales model is materially different from the one scrutinized in the SEC case.
The document appears in the context of Ripple’s motion to seal remedies-stage materials. Ripple argues that historical contract terms remain commercially sensitive even if the company’s current sales structure has changed.
DOCUMENT DATA
- Filing date: 2024-05-29
- Court document: ECF No. 968
- Source: Ripple Reply Letter in Support of Motion to Seal
| Issue | What the filing says |
|---|---|
| Current ODL-linked XRP sales | Do not include relevant OTC-style terms such as discounts to sophisticated counterparties. |
| Historical OTC sales | Had the characteristics the court treated as Institutional Sales. |
| Ripple’s sealing argument | Past contract terms remain commercially sensitive even if the current model has changed. |
The discounts issue matters because Judge Torres focused on how XRP was sold
The broader legal context is already established in the case. Judge Analisa Torres previously ruled that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales violated securities law, while XRP itself was not deemed a security in the abstract.
That distinction put transaction structure at the center of the case. Ripple’s current argument is designed to show that the sales mechanics now tied to ODL are different from the earlier OTC arrangements that created liability exposure.
The no-discount point is important because discounts can signal negotiated institutional dealing rather than a more standardized product-linked distribution model. By saying those terms are absent from current ODL sales, Ripple is trying to reinforce that the conduct at issue belongs to an earlier period.
The filing does not erase the court’s prior findings. It does, however, give Ripple a basis to argue at the remedies stage that any penalty or injunctive relief should be calibrated to past conduct rather than assumed to describe its present XRP sales model.
This is also why the no-discounts claim should be treated as a narrow legal-structure argument, not as a sweeping statement about XRP market dynamics. The filing addresses contract terms and transaction design, not a complete theory of XRP price behavior.
The strongest verified claim is limited: Ripple’s May 29, 2024 filing says current ODL-linked XRP sales do not use the OTC-style discount terms associated with earlier institutional sales.
The document does not prove a broader market claim by itself, and it does not directly attribute that wording to David Schwartz.
The Schwartz link remains unverified, and that changes the headline angle
The research record for this article is only partial on one specific point. No primary-source post, interview, or transcript was identified in which Schwartz explicitly connected his “bad logic” phrasing to claims that Ripple gives XRP sale discounts.
That gap matters because it separates two debates that often get blended together. One debate concerns whether Ripple’s holdings or sales pressure XRP’s price, while the other concerns whether current ODL-linked transactions include negotiated discounts.
The available evidence supports the second point through Ripple’s court filing. It does not support collapsing that filing-based claim into a direct Schwartz quote.
That is why the more defensible angle is narrower than the original headline. The filing can be cited directly, but the Schwartz-discounts connection should be presented as unverified unless a primary-source statement surfaces.
For readers following the case, the practical takeaway is straightforward. The verified record says Ripple is arguing that its current XRP sales model no longer resembles the earlier discounted OTC institutional contracts, and the next meaningful catalyst is how the court treats that distinction in the remedies phase.
This leaves the market conversation in a more precise place. Ripple’s filing supports a claim about present sales terms, while broader commentary about XRP price influence remains a separate argument that should not be merged into the same quote unless new primary evidence emerges.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or legal advice. Readers should review the court filing directly and consult qualified professionals for legal or investment decisions.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
