In August 2025, Ripple Labs formally closed its years-long battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The company paid a $125 million civil penalty, accepted an injunction on certain institutional XRP sales, and walked away with something more valuable than victory: clarity.
Judge Analisa Torres had already ruled in July 2023 that XRP itself wasn’t inherently a security and that programmatic sales on exchanges didn’t trigger Howey test requirements.
Direct institutional sales totaling about $728 million did violate securities law, but the core business survived intact.
The existential threat evaporated, and the stain of “unregistered security in secondary markets” lifted.
Industry watchers expected the obvious next move: an initial public offering to capitalize on vindication, access deeper pools of capital, and cement Ripple’s status as a legitimate financial infrastructure company.
Instead, Ripple did something else.
It raised half a billion dollars at a $40 billion valuation from Fortress Investment Group and Citadel Securities, executed a $1 billion tender offer at the same price to provide early investor liquidity, acquired a prime broker for $1.25 billion, launched a stablecoin, and applied for a US national bank charter.
The firm did everything except go public.
That choice deserves scrutiny not because it suggests weakness, since the company’s moves demonstrate the opposite, but because it reveals how crypto’s most sophisticated operators read the actual state of US public markets.
Ripple’s hesitation is less about what it can’t do and more about what it has learned watching others try.
Capital without the theater
The traditional case for an IPO rests on two pillars: access to capital and liquidity for stakeholders, and Ripple solved both without filing an S-1.
The 2025 capital raise attracted investors such as Fortress, Citadel Securities, Brevan Howard, Marshall Wace, Pantera Capital, and Galaxy Digital. This is the kind of investor roster that typically signals institutional legitimacy.
These aren’t crypto-native venture funds taking flyers on protocols, but multi-strategy macro shops and market makers deploying significant capital at a $40 billion valuation.
The tender offer provided exit liquidity for early employees and investors without the roadshow circus or quarterly earnings calls.
New strategic backers secured positions, while Ripple preserved tight control over its XRP treasury and RLUSD stablecoin economics.
Additionally, the company effectively recreated most benefits of a public listing while remaining in a private disclosure regime that doesn’t require explaining every strategic decision to retail shareholders and activist investors.
When a private round led by Citadel Securities functions as a de facto institutional seal of approval, the signaling value of a Wall Street listing loses some of its historical premium.
In other words, Ripple doesn’t need the Nasdaq to prove it’s real, it already proved that by attracting capital from firms that trade hundreds of billions in traditional securities daily.
The XRP machine under glass
Going public would force uncomfortable transparency around questions that equity analysts ask reflexively, but token projects prefer to keep blurry.
How much of Ripple’s revenue and cash flow depends on selling XRP over time? How should investors value a company controlling a large escrowed stash of a volatile token that it partially influences through its own product decisions and announcements? How durable is growth in RLUSD, payment processing, custody services, and prime brokerage compared to XRP mark-to-market effects?
These aren’t hypothetical concerns. A 2024 Forbes analysis characterized Ripple as a “crypto zombie” with modest fee income relative to enormous token holdings.
The company has since moved aggressively to fix that characterization through the $1.25 billion Hidden Road acquisition, the $200 million purchase of stablecoin infrastructure firm Rail, and the buildout of RLUSD, which processes about $95 billion in payments.
But an IPO would freeze that evolution into SEC filings, inviting constant comparison between operating business fundamentals and token treasury fluctuations.
Ripple also carries a permanent federal injunction tied to institutional XRP sales and a fresh $125 million violation on its books. That history is absolutely IPO-manageable, as plenty of companies list with regulatory settlements behind them, but it’s not clean.
It means extra risk-factor disclosures, extra analyst questions, and a real-time reminder that US securities law has already embedded itself in the company’s past behavior.
A firm that spent years arguing XRP isn’t a security understandably has limited enthusiasm for immediately becoming a registered securities issuer, whose every XRP movement would be judged by the same rulebook.
Crypto’s public market scar tissue
Ripple’s caution makes more sense in the context of how US public markets have treated crypto companies that did take the leap.
Coinbase is the cautionary tale. It executed a textbook direct listing in April 2021, complete with blue-chip advisors and full regulatory disclosure.
Within two years, the SEC sued Coinbase anyway, alleging it operated an unregistered exchange and broker-dealer.
The lesson absorbed across the industry: going public is not a regulatory safe harbor. It can paint a bigger target on your back by centralizing liability and creating a highly visible enforcement trophy.
Circle attempted a SPAC merger in 2021, but it was killed when regulatory tone and market conditions soured. The company finally completed a successful IPO in 2025.
Gemini followed a similar path, listing after regulatory frameworks solidified. Crypto firms that list cleanly are those whose economics resemble those of traditional, boring, fee-and-yield fintechs.
Companies that resemble regulated money transmitters or custody providers can fit into existing analyst models and compliance frameworks.
Ripple doesn’t fit those boxes. It’s simultaneously a token issuer with XRP, a would-be bank with a charter application pending, a stablecoin operator with RLUSD, a capital markets infrastructure owner with Hidden Road, and a firm with a documented enforcement history.
Cramming that hybrid structure into one public ticker invites every regulatory constituency to fight over how the company should be policed, priced, and potentially broken apart.
Maintaining privacy while pursuing a national bank charter and establishing structured relationships with multiple regulators enables Ripple to select its referees.
The bank charter route subjects the firm to prudential supervision, but treats RLUSD reserves parked at the Federal Reserve as banking activity, rather than securities issuance.
That’s a fundamentally different regulatory posture than trying to explain XRP custody and RLUSD mechanics in a Form 10-K while defending against potential securities litigation.
What hesitation reveals
Ripple’s “no rush” posture toward public markets is a signal worth decoding.
If a legally vindicated, strategically positioned, $40 billion-valued company backed by Citadel Securities, Fortress, and Brevan Howard still prefers tender offers, private rounds, and a bank charter application over a public listing, it’s not because the balance sheet is weak or the business model is broken.
Although much has changed during President Donald Trump’s administration, the US public market regime still treats crypto-native structures as problems to be contained rather than forms to be accommodated.
Despite years of maturation, institutional adoption, and regulatory battles fought to conclusion, the infrastructure for reasonably pricing and governing hybrid token-plus-operating-business companies remains underdeveloped.
Crypto firms have discovered they can now access deep institutional capital, regulatory legitimacy, and stakeholder liquidity through private placements, stablecoin frameworks like the GENIUS Act, and banking charters without surrendering narrative control or expanding their litigation surface area through public filings.
That’s not a temporary arbitrage. It’s a structural judgment about where the path of least resistance actually runs.
For Ripple specifically, staying private preserves maximum flexibility over XRP treasury management and RLUSD strategy while the company rebuilds itself as a full-stack financial infrastructure provider.
Listing now would lock that evolving story into quarterly earnings theater, which has historically not been kind to this industry.
Better to prove the model works, deepen regulatory relationships through the bank charter process, and wait until public markets can actually price what Ripple is becoming rather than what it used to be.
The company beat the SEC in court, but it’s choosing not to test whether Wall Street is ready to understand what comes next.
Mentioned in this article
