Share
Ask whether XRP is decentralized and you will get a different answer depending on who you ask, which layer of the network they are describing, and what definition of decentralization they are applying. However, the honest answer is that all of them are partially right. But how?
While the idea that all three answers are right may sound like a cop-out, it is actually the most accurate description you could get. Remember, this is a network that was deliberately designed to sit between two worlds: the permissionless idealism of Bitcoin and the institutional reliability that banks require.
To understand where XRP actually lands, one must be able to separate three distinct questions. Is the ledger technically decentralized? Is the validator set politically decentralized? And is the token supply distribution compatible with any meaningful definition of decentralization?
The answers to these three questions are different. The debate around XRP conflates all three, which is why it has become an endless, unresolved conundrum.
The XRP Ledger uses a federated consensus protocol rather than proof-of-work or proof-of-stake. There are independent servers run by companies, universities, exchanges and individuals, called validators. These validators vote on the state of the ledger every three to five seconds. When 80% or more of trusted validators agree on a transaction’s validity, it is permanently recorded. For a transaction to be classified as invalid, it would require more than 80% of trusted validators to collude. That’s a supermajority that the architecture specifically makes it difficult to assemble.
However, this design has its advantages. One of them is speed. The network settles transactions in three to five seconds without incurring mining costs. It does not concentrate power in the hands of large mining pools. Neither does it need 32 ETH to participate as a validator. There are currently 120-plus active validators on the network globally. Ripple runs only one of the 35 on the default Unique Node List.
On those metrics, the ledger functions without central control over individual transactions. A single entity can’t approve or reject a specific payment by itself. David Schwartz, the lead architect of XRPL, has argued that even if Ripple’s validators acted maliciously, they could not enforce double-spending or unilaterally alter ledger history. Users could always change their validator lists and continue on a different path.
"…effectively giving the Ripple Foundation & company absolute power & control over the chain…"
This is as objectively nonsensical as claiming someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion bitcoins.
— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 24, 2026
Technically, that is an accurate statement. But it describes a theoretical safeguard, not the operational reality of how the network actually runs.
The Unique Node List (UNL) sits at the centre of the debate. Every XRPL server needs a list of validators it trusts not to collude. To avoid forking, servers need UNLs with at least 90% overlap with the UNLs used by others they transact with. This places a serious limit on how much flexibility server operators have in customizing their own lists.
In practice, it means that almost every node on the network uses one of two recommended default lists: one published by the XRPL Foundation and one published by Ripple. Truly, it is theoretically possible to choose a significantly different list, but it’s practically dangerous. Doing so introduces the risk of your node forking away from the rest of the network.
Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, argued in February 2026 that the UNL operates as a Proof-of-Authority system in disguise. The position he held on the matter was a direct one. He said any divergence from Ripple’s centrally published validator list would cause a fork, giving Ripple effective control over which validators the network trusts.
We must reject all centralized "blockchains"!
This includes Ripple, Canton, Stellar, Hedera & Algorand
Centralization is not the future of finance; requiring permission from an authority is not decentralized!
Do not be fooled by their lies, as the truth will set us free: 🧵…
— Justin Bons (@Justin_Bons) February 24, 2026
Most operators use the default UNLs curated by Ripple or the XRPL Foundation, creating soft centralization pressure. Even though nearly 200 validators exist, consensus weight rests with the 35 in the default list.
Schwartz’s response was that nodes retain the theoretical power to adopt a different list if Ripple misbehaved. For him, this theoretical power is what matters. He compared it to Bitcoin users hypothetically changing the mining algorithm if miners launched a 51% attack. The community holds the ultimate power to walk away from a compromised set of actors.
One counterargument that can be raised for that is that the comparison flatters the XRPL’s position. Bitcoin’s mining is permissionless. Which means anyone with hardware can participate and earn economic rewards for doing so. On the XRPL, the XRP Ledger provides no direct economic incentive for running a validator. XRPL validator operation is not a protocol staking yield mechanism.
That means the people running validators do so out of institutional goodwill, commercial interest or community commitment, rather than out of economic self-interest enforced by the protocol. When the economic incentive to maintain the network is external to the protocol, the censorship resistance is weaker than it appears.
The practical result is a network where the validator set looks diverse on paper, yet functionally concentrated in practice. XRPL is decentralized at the ledger level where it has implemented key decentralized checkpoints using validators. However, Ripple’s central role and control in key decision-making still influence the perception of its decentralization.
Even if we set aside the validator debate entirely, the token supply picture still presents a harder set of facts to reconcile with any standard definition of decentralization.
All 100 billion XRP were created at launch in 2013. There was no mining, no community distribution, no gradual issuance through open competition. Ripple Labs Escrow sits at the top of the holder list with 45% of total supply. When escrow wallets are counted, seven of the top ten XRP wallets belong to Ripple.
As of April 2026, the numbers have shifted slightly but the structure remains. After the January 2026 escrow cycle, 34.185 billion XRP remained locked in programmatic escrow. The circulating supply stands at 61.8 billion, with 14.2 million XRP permanently removed via network fee burns. Ripple’s remaining escrow balance has dropped below 38 billion for the first time. At the current release and re-lock rate, the escrow system is projected to be exhausted by the early 2030s.
Ripple still controls nearly 42% of total XRP supply through escrow and operational wallets. The top 100 XRP addresses control approximately 68% of circulating supply, which places XRP among the more concentrated large-cap cryptocurrencies.
🐋XRP WHALES NOW CONTROL NEARLY 70% OF SUPPLY
Wallets holding 10M+ XRP now control 45.85 billion XRP worth roughly $68.5 billion — the highest concentration level seen since 2018. pic.twitter.com/QD1hdV9r68
— Skipper | XRPL (@skipper_xrp) May 17, 2026
Compare that to, say, Bitcoin. Satoshi’s estimated 1.1 million BTC, widely considered permanently lost, represents roughly 5.6% of supply. No entity on Earth controls anywhere near 42% of circulating Bitcoin. The structural comparison is not even close.
Ripple’s defenders make two arguments here. The first is transparency. Unlike an unknown whale with an unknown agenda, Ripple publishes quarterly XRP Markets Reports detailing escrow releases and sales. The escrow system reduces supply uncertainty. Consistent re-locking helps traders evaluate XRP’s supply behavior as a structural fundamental rather than a price catalyst.
No matter how you look at it, a predictable entity releasing predictable amounts is arguably less dangerous to price stability than an opaque holder who could dump at any moment.
The second argument is intent. Ripple re-locks the majority of each monthly release. In April 2026, Ripple re-locked 750 million of the 1 billion released, effectively limiting the net market impact to 250 million XRP. This disciplined approach, combined with rising institutional demand from seven spot XRP ETFs, has created a structural supply tightening.
Both arguments are reasonable, but neither resolves the fundamental issue at hand. The top 10 XRP wallets control over 41% of supply, further centralizing influence. No amount of transparent reporting changes the fact that a single company holds more than four times the XRP of every other entity combined. If Ripple were to change its distribution strategy, there is no mechanism, whether technical or governance, that could stop it from doing so.
It would be inaccurate to describe the XRPL’s decentralization as static. The network has made measurable progress since 2017 and the trajectory matters.
In the early years, Ripple operated a majority of the validators on the recommended UNL and published the only widely used validator list. The company committed to a multi-phase decentralization strategy. For every two reliable independent validators added to the recommended list, one Ripple-operated node would be removed, until no entity operated a majority of recommended trusted nodes. That commitment has been honored. Ripple now runs only one of the 35 validators on the default UNL.
The XRPL Foundation was established in 2024 as a separate entity to manage UNL publication independently of Ripple. In September 2025 it completed a full migration to a new UNL publisher key and URL, transferring control of the default list from the old Foundation structure to the new one. The cryptographic key signing the dUNL now belongs to the XRPL Foundation, not to Ripple directly.
Protocol upgrades and rule changes require approval by over 80% of independent validators for two consecutive weeks. Anyone can propose amendments. Validators’ open participation and diversity help keep the system decentralized and robust. This governance mechanism has operated without Ripple overriding it. Amendments Ripple has opposed have been blocked. Amendments Ripple has not proposed have passed. The governance record shows a network where Ripple’s influence, though still present, is not absolute.
Q3 2025 data shows 1.8 million average daily transactions and a 15.4% increase in active sender addresses, signaling robust network participation. The network is not a shell. It processes real volume from real users across real payment corridors.
But progress toward decentralization is not the same as achieving it. XRPL is decentralized enough to resist direct control by Ripple but not decentralized enough to silence concerns about validator diversity and governance capture. It sits in the middle zone between federated consensus and permissionless decentralization. The consensus mechanism promotes design decentralization using low barriers and open validator participation, but the UNL practice curtails it.
Framing it as a ceiling imposed by the UNL in practice, is the most accurate single-sentence description of where the XRPL actually sits in 2026. The floor is higher than critics typically acknowledge. The ceiling is lower than supporters typically admit.
Despite all these, one structural problem has received less attention than it deserves. The XRPL has no economic incentive for running a validator.
Bitcoin miners earn block rewards. Ethereum validators earn staking yield. On the XRPL, validators receive no direct protocol reward for consensus participation. Running a validator is not a staking yield mechanism. Any product described as XRP staking is a third-party construct, not a protocol-level incentive.
This matters for long-term decentralization. Bitcoin’s validator set expands because new participants are economically rewarded for joining. The XRPL’s validator set expands because institutions, universities and individuals choose to participate out of community commitment or commercial interest. That is a more fragile foundation.
The lack of financial incentives means validator diversity remains a challenge. As of 2026, only 35 validators are trusted by default, compared to thousands on competing networks. When there is no economic pull toward participation, the default UNL tends to become self-reinforcing. Existing trusted validators stay trusted. New entrants face a high bar of demonstrated uptime and identity verification before being considered for inclusion. The 35-node default set has been relatively stable for years.
However, it is not a fatal flaw. The XRPL’s design philosophy deliberately chose reliability and speed over open participation at the validator level. But it means the decentralization ceiling some have described is partly structural, and is baked into an architecture that was never designed to be permissionless at its consensus layer.
This is the question XRP’s enthusiasts have been building toward for years. And in 2026, it is harder to dismiss than it used to be.
Here’s the argument in essence. Bitcoin was designed to be a decentralized store of value, a censorship-resistant asset that no government or corporation could seize, freeze or inflate away. For that use case, maximum decentralization is not just a nice-to-have. It is the entire product.
XRP was designed to be a settlement rail for institutional cross-border payments. For that use case, the relevant metrics are speed, cost, finality and regulatory compliance. SWIFT’s existing infrastructure sends payment instructions across 11,500 banks globally but does not actually move money. The funds sit in nostro and vostro accounts, tying up an estimated $27 trillion in parked liquidity before a transaction settles.
Against that baseline, the XRPL’s three-to-five-second finality and sub-cent transaction costs represent a genuine infrastructure improvement regardless of how its validator set is structured.
Institutions drawn to XRP are attracted to the payments use case, XRPL’s sub-five-second settlement finality, its established role in cross-border liquidity, and its integration with RLUSD as a regulated stablecoin layer. These positions it as a utility-first digital asset rather than a pure store-of-value play. Goldman Sachs disclosed a $153.8 million position in spot XRP ETFs through its Q4 2025 13F filing. JPMorgan forecasts $4 to $8.4 billion in first-year XRP ETF inflows. These are not institutions conducting philosophical debates about validator decentralization. They evaluate a payment network on the metrics that matter to payments: reliability, speed, regulatory clarity and counterparty risk.
XRP’s native alignment with ISO 20022 messaging standards makes it a sound choice for legacy financial institutions. ISO 20022 is the global standard for financial messaging that SWIFT, central banks and payment processors have been migrating to through 2025 and 2026. An asset whose ledger natively speaks the language of the global financial system has a structural advantage that no amount of decentralization philosophy can replicate.
How can ISO 20022 go beyond compliance to transform custody operations?
In this video, @StateStreet explains how ISO 20022 is embedded across its custody activities to improve data quality, simplify client interactions and enable higher levels of straight‑through processing.
By… pic.twitter.com/oNWDcgsKef
— Swift (@swiftcommunity) March 31, 2026
The counterargument is that institutional adoption of a centrally influenced network does not make that network decentralized. It makes it a faster, cheaper, more transparent version of a database that one company happens to control more than others. One might argue XRPL sits in the middle zone between federated consensus and permissionless decentralization. It is decentralized enough to resist direct control by Ripple but not decentralized enough to silence concerns about validator diversity and governance capture.
The payments-focused argument reframes the decentralization question without resolving it. If you are evaluating XRP as a censorship-resistant store of value, the validator concentration, supply distribution and UNL dynamics are disqualifying. If you are evaluating it as a regulated payments infrastructure competing with SWIFT and correspondent banking, those same features start to look like design choices rather than flaws.
A useful way to frame the XRP decentralization question is through three dimensions: technical, political and economic.
On the technical dimension, the XRPL is genuinely decentralized at the transaction level. No single entity can approve or reject specific payments. The ledger history is immutable, allowing anyone to run a full node. Payment volumes on the XRPL dropped 90% from their early February 2026 peak, raising concerns about actual network usage versus speculative demand, but the technical architecture functions as designed regardless of volume.
On the political dimension, the XRPL is partially centralized in practice. The UNL concentration means that Ripple and the XRPL Foundation collectively set the default parameters that almost every node in the network operates on. The lack of economic incentives for independent validators means the diversity of the trusted set is structurally limited. Many operators use the default UNLs curated by Ripple or the XRPL Foundation, creating soft centralization pressure.
Even though nearly 200 validators exist, consensus weight rests with the 35 in the default list. The governance progress since 2017 is real and measurable. The gap between that progress and what Bitcoin or Ethereum represent has also been real and measurable.
On the economic dimension, the supply concentration is the hardest fact to argue about. Ripple controls nearly 42% of total XRP supply through escrow and operational wallets. No major cryptocurrency has comparable issuer concentration at this stage of its development. The escrow system provides transparency and predictability. It does not
Share
preferred on
