德克萨斯大学的詹姆斯·C·斯宾德（James C. Spindler）教授于2025年5月发表的一份新学术论文，并通过威廉和玛丽法学院发行，对XRP的经济性质进行了详细的法律检查。

独立加密研究员SMQKE在X上向公众介绍的这一观点导致了XRP社区的广泛辩论。

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.

得克萨斯大学的詹姆斯·C·斯宾德（James C. Spindler）教授对XRP的经济性质进行了新的分析，并通过William＆Mary法学院发布。

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.

该报告的标题为“加密货币”中的“打开经济利益”：对新的金融时代的诉讼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.

分析断言，尽管购买XRP的个人可能无法获得波纹的股份，也不有权获得股息或治理参与，但他们实际上与Ripple的未来财务成果保持一致。独立加密研究员SMQKE在X上向公众介绍的这一观点导致了XRP社区的广泛辩论。

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.

该报告为围绕XRP的法律和财务状况的正在进行的对话提供了新的见解，特别是考虑到Ripple与美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的长期冲突。目前，这两家机构都在寻求解决此案，双方都同意放弃尚待上诉。

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.

根据Spindler的论文，如果一家公司开始提供跟踪未来收益的数字代币，而无需提供相应的合法权利，则可能会规避常规财务法规。但是，该公司销售代币的这种策略在未来的收入中提供了比例的权益，这对投资者的保护和监管清晰度有影响。

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.

该报告仍指出，Ripple通过经营具有实际收入的企业来与许多其他加密实体不同。这一事实增加了其模型的合法性，并支持其主张，即令牌在工作经济体系内的功能，而不是仅作为投机资产。

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强调了XRP的XRP代理是由Ripple基于区块链的支付解决方案引起的一部分未来现金流。该观点是在报告对美国最高法院案件诉WJ Howey Co.的报告的分析中提出的，该案件通常用于确定美国的安全性。

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.

该报告还探讨了Ripple的论点，即XRP从根本上是实用程序，而不是投资工具。根据Spindler的说法，这一主张得到了令牌对XRPL交易费用的要求及其可选用作付款走廊中的桥梁资产的要求，这将其与股票或债券（如股票或债券）区分开来。

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依靠普通法原则认为，直接参与代币的使用对于其价值主张至关重要，其价值主张与通常提供被动投资回报的证券形成鲜明对比。

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，尽管新技术经常突破法律框架的界限，但需要平衡以确保公平并防止滥用。我们的监管机构将如何适应这种代币的收入模型和周围出现的生态系统的发展景观还有待观察。