In court filings, Ripple had suggested an interpretation of the Howey test that required “essential ingredients.” In this interpretation, a security required a contract that established an investor’s rights, post-sale obligations on the promoter of the investment, and a right to share in profits. Torres didn’t accept this interpretation, “which would call for the Court to read beyond the plain words of Howey and impose additional requirements not mandated by the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “The Court sees no reason to do so.”