Ex-Ripple CTO Makes Fresh Defense of Ripple's Control Over XRP

@media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:320px;height:100px;} } @media only screen and (min-width: 728px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:728px;height:90px;} }

The battle over what defines true decentralization has erupted again, and this time, XRP sits squarely in the spotlight. As blockchain networks compete for institutional relevance and ideological purity, critics and builders continue to clash over governance models.

The latest exchange highlights how deeply divided the crypto industry remains on the meaning of “permissionless.”

Former Ripple CTO David Schwartz publicly defended the XRP Ledger after crypto commentator Justin Bons accused several major networks of operating as centralized systems.

Bons argued that Ripple, alongside Canton, Stellar, Hedera, and Algorand, relies on validator structures that undermine decentralization. Schwartz directly challenged that claim and rejected the assertion that Ripple exercises absolute control over XRP.

The Core of the Criticism

Bons focused his criticism on Ripple’s Unique Node List, commonly known as the UNL. He claimed that because many participants rely on a recommended validator list, divergence from it could cause a fork.

He argued that this structure effectively gives Ripple significant influence over network consensus. While he acknowledged that XRP’s supply cannot be arbitrarily inflated and funds cannot be stolen, he suggested that a dominant validator influence could theoretically enable double-spending or censorship.

Bons compared this scenario to a majority mining attack on Bitcoin, implying that concentrated control in any consensus system creates systemic risk.

Schwartz’s Technical Rebuttal

Schwartz firmly rejected the comparison. He stated that XRPL does not operate like proof-of-work networks and does not depend on mining power concentration. He explained that each node operator independently selects trusted validators. A node counts validator agreements and will not validate a double-spend or censorship attempt unless its operator deliberately configures it to do so.

Schwartz emphasized that no single entity can unilaterally force consensus changes across independently configured nodes. He described the claim that Ripple holds “absolute power” as technically unsound and fundamentally inconsistent with how XRPL consensus functions.

How XRPL Consensus Differs

The XRP Ledger uses a Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus protocol. Validators propose transaction sets, and the network reaches agreement when a supermajority aligns. Ripple publishes a recommended UNL, but node operators retain full discretion to modify their lists. This flexibility, Schwartz argues, preserves decentralization while maintaining efficiency.

Unlike proof-of-work systems, XRPL does not reward mining dominance. Instead, it relies on distributed validator agreement, which reduces the risk of unilateral control.

The Broader Implications

This exchange reflects a wider ideological divide within crypto. Purists demand maximal permissionlessness, while enterprise-focused networks prioritize scalability and predictable governance. As adoption grows and institutional players enter the space, these debates will likely intensify.

For now, Schwartz maintains that the XRP Ledger resists centralized control by design. Whether critics accept that defense remains part of crypto’s ongoing evolution.

Disclaimer*: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.*