Financial markets rarely pause for emotional appeals, yet one attempt recently stood out. A devoted Bitcoin maximalist submitted an eight-point letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, urging the agency to block the approval of XRP exchange-traded funds.
His request arrived at a moment when interest in crypto ETFs is accelerating, making the effort both dramatic and unusual.
The story gained traction after Diana shared the letter on X. Her post drew wide attention because the arguments were bold, pointed, and, at times, surprising.
Many observers viewed the submission as an effort to revive older concerns that regulators have already examined. However, Diana’s post ignited fresh debate about whether personal ideology should shape ETF approval processes.
The Timing Behind the Controversy
The letter surfaced as momentum around XRP ETFs continued to build. The first U.S. spot XRP ETF launched with strong market interest and impressive early volume.
BREAKING: A Bitcoin maxi actually sent the SEC an 8-point letter begging them to deny or delay the $XRP ETFs — and the reasons are… let’s just say “creative.” 😂
Here’s his list:
1. “No U.S.-regulated XRP futures.”
2. “There was an SEC lawsuit.”
3.… pic.twitter.com/bCYGxme23U— Diana (@InvestWithD) November 14, 2025
That debut strengthened the narrative that institutional demand exists, regardless of polarized views within the crypto community. The timing of the letter appeared almost reactionary, arriving after the market had already signaled its confidence.
Revisiting Regulatory History and XRP’s Legal Outcome
One of the central claims in the letter focused on past regulatory battles. The SEC’s suit against Ripple shaped XRP’s reputation for years. However, the case reached final closure after both sides withdrew their appeals.
That conclusion left no active legal cloud over XRP. The legal clarity removed a major argument often used to question XRP’s eligibility for regulated investment products.
Infrastructure, Transparency, and Market Maturity
The letter also raised doubts about market infrastructure and transparency. It mentioned the absence of regulated U.S. futures, unusual on-chain activity, and limited analytics.
These claims ignore recent progress. U.S. venues now offer regulated XRP derivatives, giving institutions more tools for risk management. Analytics platforms also provide extensive real-time data on XRP activity. The ecosystem continues to expand as more regulated gateways emerge.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
The Debate Over Token Distribution and Centralization
Another theme in the letter targeted XRP’s distribution model and supply structure. The writer criticized Ripple’s holdings and compared XRP’s origins to Bitcoin’s mining-based issuance. These concerns are not new.
They have circulated for years and remain part of ongoing industry discussions. Yet regulated products do not require Bitcoin-style issuance. Regulators evaluate risk, custody, liquidity, and market integrity instead. XRP meets those standards under current frameworks.
Why the Letter Failed to Change the Outcome
The submission generated attention, but it did not alter regulatory momentum. ETFs launched as planned. Investor activity confirmed that the market had already made its decision.
The attempt to delay approval became more symbolic than practical. It demonstrated the ongoing ideological divide in crypto, but it also showed how little influence such pleas have at this stage.
A Final Look at the Market’s Verdict
The episode revealed a clash between personal conviction and market reality. While the Bitcoin maximalist tried to halt progress, liquidity and demand pushed forward. The XRP ETFs moved ahead without hesitation.
The market responded with participation rather than fear. That outcome left the letter as a moment of commentary rather than a barrier to adoption.