The OG Wolf of Wall Street owns six figures worth XRP. Here’s how XRP could be the next big thing

Amid the ongoing XRP lawsuit, Ripple’s XRP token had initially suffered bearish waves, however, the tables might be turning soon with the real Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort taking to Twitter to confirm that he owns a rather hefty amount of the XRP and is looking forward to the upcoming hike. With the wall street legend’s addition to the XRP community, the token’s fate appears bright.

Earlier this week, Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong also noted Ripple’s status in the lawsuit as, “better than expected”. He said that “The Ripple case seems to be going better than expected. Meanwhile, the SEC is realizing that attacking crypto is politically unpopular (because it harms consumers).”. Along with the crypto community’s support, Ripple is also getting rather favorable decisions from the court.

XRP lawsuit moves in Ripple’s favor

The XRP lawsuit has recently taken manifold 180 degree turns and currently stands in favor of Ripple. The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw the court partially grant two motions, one for both parties. However, the defendants experienced a win-win situation despite the court rejecting part of its motion. Judge Netburn granted most of Ripple’s requests in the Interrogatories dispute, including the parties’ conflict over the application of Howey, where the court ordered the SEC to answer Ripple’s interrogatory No.2, identifying the specific terms of the “investment contract” from XRP sales.

Furthermore, Judge Netburn also ordered the SEC to state whether it contends that “efforts by Ripple were necessary to effect any increase in the price of XRP”, along with answering whether it objects that “Bitcoin and/or Ether are securities within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1933 Securities Exchange Act.” Additionally, in the RFAs dispute, where the SEC sought a protective order, the court denied SEC’s “irrelevance” argument regarding Ripple’s “fair notice” objection and asserted that disputes over interpretations of law are not a proper objection to a request for admission.