Is the XRP Ledger Centralized? Industry Heavyweights Debate True Decentralization

▲ XRP

A heated debate has erupted over whether the XRP Ledger is centralized, with prominent industry figures clashing over the true standards of blockchain decentralization.

On February 25 (local time), according to crypto-focused media outlet BeInCrypto, Justin Bons, Chief Investment Officer of Cyber Capital, strongly criticized the XRP Ledger as being technically centralized in structure. Through X (formerly Twitter), Bons argued that the XRP Ledger’s Unique Node List (UNL) system effectively makes validators permissioned. He claimed that deviating from the centrally issued list can trigger a hard fork, which in practice grants the Ripple Foundation and the company absolute control over the chain.

Bons further contended that if a blockchain consensus mechanism is neither Proof of Work nor Proof of Stake, it effectively amounts to Proof of Authority by definition. He emphasized that directly selecting trusted parties contradicts the principle of trustlessness, adding that the future of finance should be rooted in decentralization and permissionless structures. According to Bons, permissioned chains such as XRP and Stellar are not part of the true blockchain revolution, and investors should reject such frameworks and demand complete decentralization.

In response, Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz firmly pushed back, stating that the network was intentionally designed from the outset to prevent Ripple from having control over it. He explained that for a company subject to U.S. court orders, possessing control over the network could actually pose a regulatory risk. Ripple deliberately chose not to retain such authority, a decision he said benefits the company from a regulatory standpoint. Schwartz stressed that the XRP Ledger was meticulously engineered to prevent unilateral dominance by any single entity, including Ripple.

Schwartz also clarified that it is impossible for validators on the XRP Ledger to force double spending or censor transactions. Each node independently enforces protocol rules and only considers validators included in its chosen Unique Node List. He added that transaction discrimination and malicious ordering frequently occur on Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) as well, but the XRP Ledger addresses these issues through consensus rounds. Because transactions are approved by a majority vote of validators during consensus processes that occur approximately every five seconds, he argued that monopolistic control is difficult to exercise.

This dispute highlights fundamental differences within the industry over how to measure decentralization, a core value of blockchain technology. While Bons emphasizes a strictly permissionless framework, Schwartz maintains that practical operational stability and institutional adoption justify what he considers reasonable decentralization. Market observers are closely watching whether the XRP Ledger can overcome ongoing centralization concerns and maintain investor confidence through its technical strengths and real-world use cases.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. The publisher is not responsible for any losses incurred based on this content.