SEC Approves Nasdaq Texas ETP Rule That Names XRP in a Worked Example

What the SEC approved on September 3

The SEC approved Nasdaq Texas's amended Rule 5711(d) on September 3, 2026. The rule allows a Commodity-Based Trust Share to keep up to 15% of its net asset value in certain otherwise ineligible digital commodities or securities, and its worked example names XRP. It does not approve an XRP ETF. [1]

The order is Release No. 34-106268, File No. SR-NasdaqTX-2026-039. Nasdaq Texas filed the proposed change on August 20, and the SEC approved it on an accelerated basis. The amendment adds a digital commodity definition, permits actively managed strategies, and creates an aggregate 15% bucket for assets that do not meet the ordinary eligibility routes. [1] Digital Capital Daily independently described the event as a change to the exchange's generic crypto ETP listing framework, rather than the approval of a named fund. [4]

Confirmed fact: the SEC approved a rule change for an exchange's listing standard. The order does not name an XRP sponsor, issuer, ticker, custodian, trust, creation basket, redemption process, or first trading date. Those omissions are important because a rule that can accommodate a product is not the same record as a product filing or a listing notice. [1]

Section sources[1][4]

Why XRP appears in the order

XRP appears in a worked example designed to show how the 85% core and 15% buffer operate. The SEC describes a hypothetical $100 million Commodity-Based Trust Share holding $95 million of Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, and XRP, with the remaining $5 million invested in several digital commodities that do not meet the ordinary eligibility criteria. Because the first group equals 95% of net asset value, the example satisfies the generic threshold. [1]

That example is useful for understanding the rule, but it is not evidence of a fund's actual holdings. It does not say that a sponsor selected XRP, that Nasdaq Texas received an XRP product application, or that any dollars entered an XRP vehicle. Editorial boundary: the only defensible XRP statement from this passage is that XRP is one of the assets used in the SEC's hypothetical basket. [1]

The order's terminology also sits inside a wider 2026 regulatory record. A March SEC and CFTC interpretation created a taxonomy for certain crypto assets and discussed digital commodities, while the SEC's accompanying release said the agencies were clarifying how federal securities laws apply to several asset categories. The September order refers to that guidance when defining a digital commodity. [1][2][3]

Unresolved uncertainty: the order does not turn its example into a forecast. It does not establish an XRP allocation percentage for any future product, a timetable for a listing, an expectation of assets under management, or a market response. The example should be read as a compliance illustration, not as a transaction announcement. [1][4]

Section sources[1][2][3][4]

The 85/15 structure is the central mechanical change

The amended standard is easiest to understand as a portfolio eligibility test. The ordinary routes still do the main work. The new buffer provides limited room for assets that fail those routes, but it does not replace them. The SEC's order also says derivatives included in the buffer are measured using gross notional value, which prevents a small cash outlay from disguising a larger stated exposure. [1]

Section sources[1]

Active management has a compliance perimeter

The amendment also removes the passive-only constraint for products that otherwise fit the Commodity-Based Trust Share framework. That means an eligible vehicle can be actively managed under the generic standard, subject to the rule's other conditions. The change concerns how a qualifying product may be managed. It does not identify an XRP manager or promise that an active product will be filed. [1]

The order pairs that flexibility with a public-information requirement. Before trading opens, a product's website must disclose information such as holdings, ticker, asset identification, descriptions, quantities, and portfolio weightings. If the required information is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, the exchange must halt trading until the information is available. [1]

The compliance perimeter also includes exchange surveillance, reporting authority, information barriers, and controls around material nonpublic information. Confirmed fact: the order treats transparency and market-integrity controls as conditions around the listing path, not as optional marketing features. Bounded inference: any future XRP vehicle using this route would have to be judged against those controls, but the September order contains no product-specific finding. [1]

Section sources[1]

What Rule 19b-4(e) changes for a qualifying product

The order explains that a Commodity-Based Trust Share satisfying a generic standard under Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(e) can commence trading without a separate product-by-product public-comment rule filing and individual SEC approval under Section 19(b). That is a procedural route for products that meet the stated standard. It is not a blanket authorization for every digital asset or every sponsor. [1]

A product outside the generic criteria is not automatically barred. The SEC order says an exchange can still submit a separate Section 19(b) filing for that product. The practical distinction is between a vehicle that can document compliance with the standing standard and one that needs a bespoke review. Digital Capital Daily's independent account makes the same high-level distinction by describing the change as listing capacity, not an approval of a specific fund. [1][4]

Bounded inference: the amended standard could reduce procedural uncertainty for an issuer designing a product around eligible assets, the 15% aggregate buffer, and the disclosure requirements. That inference stops at process. It cannot support claims about which issuer will act, how much XRP a future vehicle might hold, whether a product will list, or whether investors will buy it. [1][4]

Section sources[1][4]

What this means for XRP ETF watchers

Confirmed fact: the September order makes XRP visible in two ways. It references a digital commodity framework informed by the March SEC and CFTC interpretation, and it uses XRP in the hypothetical 95% qualifying basket. Neither fact is a fund launch, an XRP-specific approval, or a record of assets entering a product. [1][2][3]

The clearest market-structure implication is that XRP can be discussed within a generic ETP eligibility framework without pretending that a product already exists. A future issuer could decide whether to pursue a structure under this rule or use another route, but that decision would require its own public record. A prospectus, registration statement, exchange notice, or separate SEC filing would be the evidence of that next step. [1]

Unresolved uncertainty: the order does not disclose a sponsor, fund name, ticker, XRP weight, custodian, creation and redemption agent, fee schedule, authorized participant, listing date, or expected assets. It also contains no XRP price target, flow estimate, adoption measure, or causal claim about market behavior. Those data points must not be reverse-engineered from the hypothetical example. [1][4]

Editorial boundary: a headline saying the SEC approved an XRP ETF would be inaccurate. A defensible headline says the SEC approved Nasdaq Texas's generic ETP rule and that XRP appears in its worked example. That wording preserves the meaningful regulatory development while keeping the product-status line intact. [1][4]

Section sources[1][2][3][4]

Implications for affected readers

For XRP holders, the order does not change wallet mechanics, token supply, account access, or any confirmed trading venue. There is no action to take based on the hypothetical basket alone. Readers should separate a rulebook change from an issuer's decision to create a product and from an investor's decision to buy it. [1]

For ETF watchers and prospective issuers, the useful checklist is procedural. Look for a named sponsor, trust documents, a registration statement or prospectus, an exchange notice, the stated eligibility route, custody and creation details, and the public portfolio disclosures required before trading. Without those records, the story remains about exchange infrastructure rather than an investable XRP vehicle. [1]

For XRPL developers and businesses, this is a securities-market structure development, not a protocol release or a change to ledger functionality. The order does not report a new XRPL integration, payment corridor, settlement deployment, or enterprise usage result. Any such claim would need separate primary evidence. [1][4]

For analysts and reporters, the $95 million figure belongs in the category of hypothetical compliance math. It should not be counted as XRP holdings, demand, liquidity, or institutional exposure. The clean citation is the SEC order itself, supplemented by independent coverage that preserves the distinction between a generic exchange rule and a named fund. [1][4]

Section sources[1][4]

What remains unresolved

The September order answers a narrow question: what generic conditions can Nasdaq Texas use for certain Commodity-Based Trust Shares? It does not answer whether a sponsor will use the standard for an XRP product. That question remains open until a named filing or exchange notice supplies product-level facts. [1]

Watch status: confirmed is the exchange-rule approval and the hypothetical XRP example. Bounded inference is that a standing 85/15 framework may give future issuers another design path. Unresolved are the issuer, vehicle, allocation, custody, fees, listing date, holdings, flows, and market outcome. Any update should be anchored to the next primary record rather than to speculation. [1][4]

Section sources[1][4]