A new academic paper published in May 2025 by Professor James C. Spindler of the University of Texas and released through the William & Mary Law School presents a detailed legal examination of XRP’s economic nature.

This perspective, introduced to the public by independent crypto researcher SMQKE on X, has led to extensive debate within the XRP community.

A new analysis of XRP’s economic nature has been presented by Professor James C. Spindler of the University of Texas and released through the William & Mary Law School.

The report, titled "Unpacking "Economic Interest’ in Cryptocurrency: Reflections on the SEC v. Ripple Case and Delicate Legal Boundaries in a New Era of Finance," was written by Spindler and published in May 2025 by the William & Mary Law Review. It provides a detailed examination of the legal and financial implications of individuals purchasing the cryptocurrency XRP, which is associated with the Ripple protocol.

The analysis asserts that while individuals who purchase XRP may not be acquiring a share in Ripple nor entitled to dividends or governance participation, they are effectively aligning themselves with Ripple’s future financial outcomes. This perspective, introduced to the public by independent crypto researcher SMQKE on X, has led to extensive debate within the XRP community.

The report brings fresh insight into the ongoing conversation around XRP’s legal and financial status, particularly in light of Ripple’s long-standing conflict with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Both institutions are currently seeking to settle the case, and both sides have agreed to drop pending appeals.

According to Spindler’s paper, if a firm begins offering digital tokens that track future earnings, without offering corresponding legal rights, they could potentially circumvent conventional financial regulations. However, this strategy by firms to sell tokens that provide a proportionate interest in future earnings has implications for investor protection and regulatory clarity.

Still, the report notes that Ripple stands apart from many other crypto entities by operating a business with actual, consistent revenue. This fact adds legitimacy to its model and supports its claim that the token functions within a working economic system rather than serving solely as a speculative asset.

The claim that XRP serves as a proxy for a portion of future cashflows arising from Ripple’s blockchain-based payment solutions is a key takeaway highlighted by SMQKE. This perspective is presented in the report’s analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court case SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., which is often used to determine what constitutes a security in the U.S.

The report also explores Ripple’s argument that XRP is fundamentally a utility token, not an investment vehicle. According to Spindler, this assertion is supported by the token’s requirement for transaction fees on the XRPL and its optional use as a bridge asset in payment corridors, which distinguishes it from traditional financial instruments like stocks or bonds.

Relying on common law principles, Spindler argues that direct involvement in the use of the token is crucial for its value proposition, contrasting with securities that typically provide passive investment returns.

The paper’s analysis suggests that while new technologies often push the boundaries of legal frameworks, a balance is needed to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. It remains to be seen how U.S. regulators will adapt to this evolving landscape of tokenized revenue models and the ecosystem that has emerged around them.