Before Ripple vs. the SEC, there was (and actually still is) LBRY vs. the SEC. The latter case is actually the more important in my view, because LBRY has far less funding to fight for what's right. And as soon as the SEC wins, that's precedent on the books that can be used against other crypto "companies." So LBRY vs. the SEC will likely have much more of an effect than you think, especially if the SEC chooses to focus its guns there.
The latest news on the XRP vs. SEC case is that the SEC can't make any headway. Who knows why not; it's obvious that XRP is a security. People were trading it for dollars all day and night. (Not that I agree that the SEC or CFTC or whoever should be able to define these things anyway. They shouldn't. I'm just going off their definition for the time being.)
But think about it. If I was a government agency trying to set precedent, would I go after the company that had created the wealthiest man on the planet for a few minutes in Brad Garlinghouse? Ripple is perhaps the only crypto company the SEC faces with funds as unlimited as its own — people are still conducting business in the token, providing the company with endless funds to defend itself. Lbry doesn't have this kind of clout.
Should the SEC move on from Ripple, and it may just be running the last legs in this race to save face, it will have a much better chance of winning outright, setting precedent, and disallowing everything fun in crypto for people in the United States. Hope they aren't that smart. I don't really think they are, but hey — they could be Alucard readers.
---
