- Former SEC attorney Teresa Goody Guillén backed Ripple’s legal argument to U.S. regulators.
- She said price speculation alone should not trigger securities law.
- Her filing responded to Ripple’s CLARITY Act concerns in a public submission.
- Guillén also proposed a new “Digital Value Instruments” category for crypto.
Introduction
A former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer publicly supported Ripple’s position on the CLARITY Act, arguing that mere speculation on token prices should not automatically qualify a digital asset as a security under U.S. law.
Teresa Goody Guillén submitted her comments to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, reinforcing a legal argument that distinguishes between passive speculation and enforceable investment rights a distinction Ripple has emphasized in its regulatory filings.
What Happened
Guillén’s public submission, published to the SEC’s website on Monday, aligned with Ripple’s earlier letter to regulators, which warned against frameworks that treat digital tokens as securities solely because buyers hope their value will increase.
She stated that focusing only on a “passive economic interest” such as purchasing a token with the expectation of price appreciation risks “confusing speculation with investment rights,” which may not satisfy the legal definition of a security.
Guillén also outlined a discussion draft of a proposed Digital Markets Restructure Act of 2026, which would establish a new category Digital Value Instruments for assets that do not neatly fit into current securities or commodities regimes.
Why It Matters
The comments come amid a broad policy debate about how U.S. regulators classify digital assets and apply securities laws. The CLARITY Act, a legislative proposal under discussion in Congress, seeks to provide a formal rulebook for digital asset oversight, including how tokens should be categorized.
Guillén’s filing lends legal weight to Ripple’s view that speculation alone should not determine regulatory status, a point of contention that has been central to the company’s long-running dispute with the SEC and broader industry calls for clearer classification standards.
A key tension in the debate is whether reliance on public expectations of price gains often associated with speculative buying should carry as much regulatory weight as enforceable profit rights and other legal markers that traditionally define securities.
Her commentary also arrives as Senate committee markups on market structure and the CLARITY Act continue to face delays, underscoring broader uncertainties in the U.S. regulatory timeline.
Regulatory Context
Ripple’s argument echoes a wider push within parts of the industry for clearer, risk-based regulatory frameworks rather than litigation-driven enforcement. The CLARITY Act and related proposals have been debated in both the House and Senate as lawmakers try to carve out regulatory roles for agencies like the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Critics of the legislation argue some versions may simply reinforce broad SEC authority rather than streamline clarity, as evidenced by public disagreements between industry leaders over its merits.
