Ripple secured victory in the legal battle—now it is distancing itself from Wall Street despite a $40 billion IPO valuation.

Following its victory over the US Securities and Exchange Commission regarding XRP’s classification, Ripple has made an unexpected decision: it is not hurrying to pursue a public offering.

Instead, the firm has opted to remain private. This decision reflects more on the challenging relationship between cryptocurrency companies and public markets than on Ripple’s financial situation.

In July 2023, the court determined that XRP is not classified as a security when traded on public exchanges. This significant ruling removed what many considered the final major obstacle before a public offering.

After enduring years of legal battles, Ripple emerged validated. By conventional standards, this would typically be the moment for a startup to capitalize, reward its investors, access capital markets, and transition to public status.

However, Ripple chose not to proceed. This month, the company announced it has “no plan, no timeline” for an IPO. President Monica Long emphasized that Ripple possesses approximately $500 million in funding and a private valuation close to $40 billion. She asserts that Ripple does not require public markets for its growth.

This decision distinguishes Ripple from other cryptocurrency firms that have gone public and faced challenges.

Coinbase, Robinhood, and the IPO cautionary tales

Coinbase’s direct listing in 2021 was regarded as a significant milestone for the cryptocurrency sector. Initially, it appeared successful. However, even as the broader cryptocurrency market gained traction in 2025, Coinbase’s stock underperformed, declining by around 30% earlier this year. This disconnect raises concerns about the public markets’ capacity to accurately value crypto-native companies.

Robinhood, a prominent US cryptocurrency trading platform, encountered similar difficulties. Its IPO in 2021 did not stabilize its stock. Market fluctuations, trading downturns, and regulatory uncertainties negatively impacted its performance. Both companies attracted short-term attention but faced long-term volatility.

Ripple’s decision to remain private circumvents these issues. Staying away from public markets protects it from earnings fluctuations and pressures from equity investors who may not be familiar with the cryptocurrency landscape.

The quarterly performance expectations can be harsh even for well-established companies. Cryptocurrency firms, with their unpredictable revenues and regulatory risks, are particularly vulnerable.

Ripple also holds a substantial amount of XRP and is heavily dependent on its ecosystem. A public listing could create friction between token holders and equity investors, as has been observed in other cases.

Equity investors might urge Ripple to monetize its XRP holdings or change its value proposition. Remaining private allows for greater flexibility and protects token management from public examination.

Regulatory ambiguity persists. While Ripple triumphed over the SEC, the broader regulatory landscape remains contentious. The SEC is pursuing other cryptocurrency cases, and Congress has yet to establish unified legislation. Going public could entail increased disclosure and regulatory oversight. Remaining private provides Ripple with greater maneuverability.

Crucially, Ripple does not require additional funding. A $500 million raise at a $40 billion valuation indicates that there is no imminent liquidity crisis. Private capital allows Ripple to expand without engaging public investors or altering its internal governance.

A deeper tension between crypto and public markets

Ripple’s reluctance highlights an uncomfortable reality: public markets are not designed for cryptocurrency-native enterprises. Traditional investors seek predictable earnings, stable margins, and regulatory certainty. Cryptocurrency firms navigate volatile cycles, utilize complex tokenomics, and operate within fluctuating legal frameworks.

This disparity is significant. Public markets penalize companies when trading volumes decline or regulatory concerns arise, even if core growth remains robust. Cryptocurrency firms are not rewarded for their fundamentals in the same way as technology companies. Instead, they respond to market sentiment and token valuations.

This implies that a company’s fundamental operations, whether they involve enterprise blockchain services, custody infrastructure, or cross-border payments, can be overshadowed by token price fluctuations or policy shifts. In a private setting, these risks are more manageable. In a public setting, they are often amplified or misinterpreted.

Expectations from token holders further complicate matters. Cryptocurrency users frequently behave like shareholders without possessing equity. They demand updates, align with projects, and express concerns over perceived misalignments.

Going public could compel Ripple to navigate the delicate balance between equity markets and token communities, a challenging task that few companies have successfully achieved.

Ripple’s decision represents a strategic postponement rather than a retreat. If it chooses to go public, the environment must evolve: clearer regulations, more knowledgeable investors, and a stable macroeconomic landscape. Until that occurs, remaining private allows Ripple to steer its own course.

The industry lesson is evident: public listings are not guaranteed. Cryptocurrency firms must carefully consider timing, governance, and brand identity. With unconventional metrics and engaged communities, the threshold for going public is elevated.

Ripple has triumphed over the SEC. However, the quest for mainstream legitimacy and growth continues. Avoiding Wall Street for the time being may prove to be the more prudent strategy.

The post Ripple won the fight—now it’s ghosting Wall Street despite a $40B IPO valuation appeared first on CryptoSlate.