I wonder how many people think that crypto is only Bitcoin at over $70,000. But in reality, there are plenty of cheap cryptocurrencies on the market that have quite decent potential. For example, Ripple (XRP) is currently trading around $1.33 — which is 63% below its all-time high, but the project still handles bank transfers. Cardano (ADA) has fallen to $0.24, even though it was previously in the top ranks. Tron (TRX) is at $0.32 — a DeFi platform that is actively developing. I'm also looking at The Graph (GRT) at $0.02, Stellar (XLM) at $0.15, Gala (GALA), and Ankr (ANKR) — all of which have some real use cases, not just meme coins. Their market caps range from hundreds of millions to tens of billions. The main point is — a low price doesn't mean it's trash. It's important to look at what the project actually does, how much liquidity it has, and its trading volume. Some of these cryptocurrencies process billions of transactions, have partnerships with major companies. I'm not saying this is guaranteed profit — all investments carry risks. But if you're a new investor and can't afford a whole Bitcoin, there are quite interesting options at lower prices.

There’s something I’ve been keeping a close eye on lately: the long-running legal battle between Ripple and the SEC. Many people want to know why Richterin Torres didn’t simply reject this case that has been dragging on for several years. A former SEC attorney, Marc Fagel, offered a pretty interesting explanation on the X platform. According to Fagel’s analysis, Richterin Torres didn’t choose to close the case mainly because she determined that Ripple had indeed raised hundreds of millions of dollars through unregistered securities sales. That’s enough to support moving the litigation forward. Fagel’s exact words were: If a company raised so much money through illegal means, why would a judge give up? Recently, Richterin Torres dismissed the joint motion to settle filed by Ripple and the SEC. After that, Ripple withdrew its appeal and agreed to pay a $50 million fine. But this outcome hasn’t put an end to discussions in the market—many people are asking whether this lawsuit has actually achieved the SEC’s core mission: protecting investors, maintaining market fairness, and promoting capital formation. In response, Fagel was very direct: if a company is unwilling to comply with federal law, it should change the law, rather than decide for itself which laws matter. That logic is still quite convincing. Another interesting point is that Fagel explained why Ethereum wasn’t included in this case. The reason is simple: a judge can only rule on cases formally submitted to the court. This also shows that Richterin Torres’s role in the Ripple case is basically over—her ruling will take effect after the SEC officially withdraws its appeal to the appellate court. One more detail worth noting: the court’s ruling also classifies institutional XRP sales as a securities offering. This means Ripple must either stop this kind of sales or comply with securities regulations. Lawyer Bill Morgan pointed out that the purpose of the court’s injunction is to limit current or future conduct, not to address historical transactions that have already taken place. So what Ripple faces now is a long-term regulatory framework, not just penalties for past actions. The developments in this case are still worth following, as they involve the relationship between the entire crypto industry and regulation. If you’re interested, you can check out the XRP price trend on Gate and see how the market is reacting.