The discourse surrounding XRP's classification as securities has undergone a significant shift, catalyzed by insights shared by esteemed lawyer and crypto advocate Bill Morgan. Taking to Twitter recently, Morgan aimed to bring clarity to a topic riddled with confusion.

The catalyst for this discussion emerged when Morgan caught wind of comments made by former SEC director John Reed Stark. Stark suggested that the judge overseeing the Coinbase-SEC case fundamentally disagreed with Judge Torres' ruling, which deemed secondary sales of XRP as ineligible for classification as investment contracts or unregistered securities.

Morgan promptly countered Stark's assertion, labeling it as factually inaccurate. He clarified that Judge Torres did not make any such ruling regarding secondary market sales of XRP, thus raising questions about the basis for Failla's disagreement.

Another legal expert, Marc Fagel, entered the fray, expressing skepticism about how token sales via exchanges could satisfy the Howey standard, as outlined by Torres.

In response, Morgan respectfully disagreed with Fagel, highlighting Torres' focus on specific Ripple programmatic sales, which constituted one of only three categories presented by the SEC for her consideration.

Morgan elaborated that Torres' decision stemmed from a meticulous examination of the circumstances, particularly noting Ripple's promotion of XRP to secondary market investors. While evidence of Ripple's promotion to institutional investors was acknowledged, widespread promotion was not substantiated, leading to Morgan's assertion that such findings cannot be indiscriminately applied to other cryptocurrencies like Solana.

Emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the Howey test, Morgan questioned why Torres' ruling on programmatic XRP sales should preclude the possibility of secondary market sales of cryptocurrencies on exchanges being deemed investment contracts.

In essence, Morgan concluded that Torres' findings were grounded in uncontested evidence, indicating no obvious factual errors. Furthermore, he opined that the SEC's prospects for a successful appeal appeared bleak in light of these considerations.