Ripple CTO explains why XRPL cannot be owned by a single entity
In the world of cryptocurrency, people often argue about what it means for a network to be decentralized. Decentralization is a big word. It means that no single person or company controls the whole system. Instead, many people around the world can take part and help run it. This idea is important for trust and security. Ripple’s chief technology officer, or CTO, David Schwartz, recently spoke about why the XRP Ledger, called XRPL, was built so that no single company can own or control it. His comments came after a well known investor and critic, Justin Bons, said that XRPL is basically permissioned and centralized because of something called the Unique Node List, or UNL. This sparked a longer debate in the crypto world about what decentralization really means and how much power validator lists give to any one group.
Let’s break down what happened and what these terms mean in simple language. We will also explain why some people worry about control, and why others say the system is designed to resist it.
First, what is XRPL? The XRP Ledger is a cryptocurrency platform that uses its own currency called XRP. It has features that allow people to issue other kinds of digital value, such as tokens that can stand for things like airline miles or mobile minutes. In XRPL, validators are computers that run software to help confirm transactions. They work together to decide which transactions are true and should be recorded on the ledger. A validator is like a voter in an election, but for showing which transactions are valid on the network. You can read more about XRPL here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRP_Ledger.
What is the Unique Node List, or UNL? The UNL is a list that each validator maintains. It shows which other validators that operator trusts and is willing to listen to. In other words, it is a list of other computer participants that a validator says, “I will consider their work when I decide what to accept.” This list is meant to help validators choose reliable partners. Justin Bons argued that because XRPL uses a published UNL, Ripple and its foundation can have “absolute power and control over the chain.” He said that if someone diverges from the published list, the network could fork, or split into two different versions. For a full explanation, see Bons’s comments on the matter from a February thread on X, the social media site. Some people worry that such a system could give Ripple or the foundation too much influence over what happens on XRPL.
David Schwartz’s response was clear and firm. He described the idea that XRPL’s control is “absolutely centralized” as nonsense. He explained that XRPL nodes—this is what validators are called—each decide which other validators to trust. They do not agree to double-spends or censorship unless their operators choose to. A double-spend would mean spending the same money twice, which a well-run network should prevent. For XRPL, censoring or allowing double-spends would require a broad, coordinated action by many validators, not just one actor. An honest node would see one validator acting badly and simply not trust that validator anymore. In Schwartz’s words, a node would count it as just one opinion among many, not as a lock on the entire network.
Schwartz did acknowledge a possible problem: if validators were to conspire to stop the chain, they could block certain transactions or prevent progress from the point of view of honest nodes. But he also said they could not force a double-spend. If that happened, honest operators could switch to a different UNL and rely on other validators. He compared this possibility to a situation in Bitcoin where, after a major attack, a community might switch to a different mining approach. The key idea is that if some validators act badly, others can step away from them and keep the system moving toward honest consensus. This is a kind of resilience built into XRPL’s design, not a guarantee that no bad actors will ever exist.
Regulatory pressure is another piece of the puzzle. Schwartz pointed out that Ripple must comply with U.S. court orders and cannot simply refuse them. That is the real world in which XRPL operates. Because of such legal requirements, XRPL was designed in a way that Ripple itself cannot block or censor transactions when the law requires it to do so. In Schwartz’s view, the best way to be able to say “no” to a request is to build a system in which you would not be able to accomplish the thing asked in the first place. If you cannot do something, you do not have to say yes or no; you simply cannot do it. That is the practical idea behind XRPL’s design for censorship resistance while still obeying legal orders when necessary.
Turning to the broader question of how the network behaves in the real world, the XRPL has faced a drop in activity and on-chain activity. Analysts reported that the number of active users fell from more than 200,000 to about 38,000 in a short period, and the total payment volume dropped from more than 2.5 billion XRP to around 80 million XRP. A closer look suggests part of this decline comes from a February activation of a system called XLS-81. This is a permissioned decentralized exchange setup that moves some large, institutional transactions away from public dashboards. In simple terms, XLS-81 lets big institutions move trades out of the public eye on the XRPL, which can make the public statistics look smaller than they actually are. This development is part of a broader shift in how XRPL is used by large financial players, and it has raised questions about what activity on the ledger truly represents.
Earlier in the year, Schwartz had proposed a two-tier staking model. The goal was to add rewards for participation without concentrating influence in Ripple’s hands. The plan involved a separate governance token to help manage the lists of validators. The idea also included the option to fork the network if governance failed. In simple terms, this was a way to give the community more power to manage who runs validators and how they reach consensus, while providing a way to split the network into two versions if the governance process broke down. This was meant to prevent the concentration of power and to give people an alternative if the system did not work as intended.
What does this mean for the ongoing debate about control? On February 25, the exchange published a note that highlighted a familiar divide among supporters and critics. Critics say that making the validator lists public creates what they call soft control: even though anyone can technically run a node, a published list might give others a sense of who is acceptable and who is not, which could influence behavior. Proponents, including Schwartz, argue that the XRPL consensus model is designed to limit the power of validators and companies alike. In other words, the system aims to avoid letting a single company—like Ripple—almost unilaterally decide what happens on the ledger. The published UNL is a tool for transparency and coordination, but it does not give Ripple the final say over every transaction. If regulators or market users push for a certain outcome, the system’s governance and the ability of node operators to switch UNLs are intended to maintain a balance of power that does not allow any one actor to own the chain.
In summary, Schwartz’s main message is that XRPL is not designed to be owned or controlled by a single entity. The network relies on a community of validators and a consensus process that requires broad agreement across different actors. Even if Ripple cannot help but comply with legal orders, the design gives the network other ways to continue operating even under pressure. The goal is to create a system that can stay honest and operational even when external forces push in different directions. Whether readers see XRPL as truly decentralized or as having a degree of central influence depends in part on how one weighs the role of validator lists, governance mechanisms, and real-world regulatory constraints. The core idea, as Schwartz puts it, is to build a system where the power to block or censor is not concentrated in one company, and where a broad community can keep the network functional without giving up safety and compliance with the law.
For those who are curious, here are quick explanations of a few important terms mentioned above. See the glossary below for simple definitions and links to more information on Wikipedia.
Key terms in plain language
- XRP Ledger and XRPL — the technology and currency behind the network; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRP_Ledger
- Validator — a computer running XRPL software that helps verify and record transactions
- Unique Node List UNL — a list of validators that a node trusts; it helps decide which other nodes to listen to
- Double-spending — spending the same digital money more than once; a bad action that a secure system should prevent
- Fork (blockchain) — when a network splits into two versions; not always permanent
- Consensus (computer science) — a process that helps many computers agree on a single result
- Decentralization — spreading power away from a single center to many participants
Glossary
- XRP Ledger (XRPL) — A cryptocurrency platform that uses XRP and supports other tokens; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRP_Ledger
- Double-spending — The act of spending the same money twice; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
- Fork (blockchain) — A split in the network into two possible paths; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)
- Consensus (computer science) — The process of getting many systems to agree on one data value; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)
- Decentralization — The distribution of authority away from a central source; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
Leave a Reply