德克薩斯大學的詹姆斯·C·斯賓德（James C. Spindler）教授於2025年5月發表的一份新學術論文，並通過威廉和瑪麗法學院發行，對XRP的經濟性質進行了詳細的法律檢查。

獨立加密研究員SMQKE在X上向公眾介紹的這一觀點導致了XRP社區的廣泛辯論。

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.

得克薩斯大學的詹姆斯·C·斯賓德（James C. Spindler）教授對XRP的經濟性質進行了新的分析，並通過William＆Mary法學院發布。

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.

該報告的標題為“加密貨幣”中的“打開經濟利益”：對新的金融時代的訴訟案和微妙的法律界限的思考。

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.

分析斷言，儘管購買XRP的個人可能無法獲得波紋的股份，也不有權獲得股息或治理參與，但他們實際上與Ripple的未來財務成果保持一致。獨立加密研究員SMQKE在X上向公眾介紹的這一觀點導致了XRP社區的廣泛辯論。

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.

該報告為圍繞XRP的法律和財務狀況的正在進行的對話提供了新的見解，特別是考慮到Ripple與美國證券交易委員會（SEC）的長期衝突。目前，這兩家機構都在尋求解決此案，雙方都同意放棄尚待上訴。

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.

根據Spindler的論文，如果一家公司開始提供跟踪未來收益的數字代幣，而無需提供相應的合法權利，則可能會規避常規財務法規。但是，該公司銷售代幣的這種策略在未來的收入中提供了比例的權益，這對投資者的保護和監管清晰度有影響。

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.

該報告仍指出，Ripple通過經營具有實際收入的企業來與許多其他加密實體不同。這一事實增加了其模型的合法性，並支持其主張，即令牌在工作經濟體系內的功能，而不是僅作為投機資產。

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.

SMQKE強調了XRP的XRP代理是由Ripple基於區塊鏈的支付解決方案引起的一部分未來現金流。該觀點是在報告對美國最高法院案件訴WJ Howey Co.的報告的分析中提出的，該案件通常用於確定美國的安全性。

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.

該報告還探討了Ripple的論點，即XRP從根本上是實用程序，而不是投資工具。根據Spindler的說法，這一主張得到了令牌對XRPL交易費用的要求及其可選用作付款走廊中的橋樑資產的要求，這將其與股票或債券（如股票或債券）區分開來。

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.

Spindler依靠普通法原則認為，直接參與代幣的使用對於其價值主張至關重要，其價值主張與通常提供被動投資回報的證券形成鮮明對比。

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.

本文的分析表明，儘管新技術經常突破法律框架的界限，但需要平衡以確保公平並防止濫用。我們的監管機構將如何適應這種代幣的收入模型和周圍出現的生態系統的發展景觀還有待觀察。