In practice, Ripple has also spent years building lines of business that do not require XRP at all: messaging and settlement software, custody, stablecoin infrastructure, institutional connectivity, and more recently, prime brokerage and treasury tooling.

That tension is exactly why Ripple’s private valuation matters. When investors value a private company at $40 billion, they are not valuing a token’s market cap; they are valuing an enterprise – its products, cash flows (current or expected), regulatory posture, customer base, and strategic positioning. 

JUST IN: Ripple’s $500 million share sale, valuing the company at $40 billion, reportedly let select investors including Citadel sell shares back at a preset higher price, guaranteeing a profit – Bloomberg. pic.twitter.com/9zef51ULSn

— Whale Insider (@WhaleInsider) December 8, 2025

Ripple’s $500 million fundraising round at a $40B valuation therefore offers a rare, market-based clue: sophisticated investors appear to believe Ripple can be a very large business whether or not XRP becomes the dominant settlement asset in global finance.

This article breaks down what the valuation does, and does not, say about XRP’s centrality, by looking at: 

• Ripple’s product suite
• Where XRP is actually required
• How institutional preferences (including SWIFT innovation chief Tom Zschach’s views) shape the addressable market for volatile tokens 
• How Ripple’s strategy changed before and after the SEC case; and
• Why a $40B valuation can rise even if XRP’s role is narrowed

The $40B valuation is about Ripple, not XRP 

Ripple’s $40B private valuation came from a financing round of $500 million led by firms including Fortress and Citadel Securities, and it followed a separate tender offer at the same valuation earlier in the year.

That distinction, company valuation vs. token value, is the starting point:

• Equity investors get claims on Ripple’s business: its product revenues, licensing/fees, enterprise relationships, and strategic assets.
• XRP holders get exposure to the market price of a freely traded token and to XRP’s utility demand (if any), but not to Ripple’s equity cash flows.

So what would make XRP “central” to Ripple’s business model in a way that should matter to equity investors?

Ripple’s growth and profitability depend primarily on XRP usage expanding materially, such that XRP-driven products are the core revenue engine and cannot be substituted by fiat rails, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, or CBDC settlement paths.

By that standard, the $40B valuation is telling: Ripple’s stated growth priorities span custody, stablecoins (RLUSD), prime brokerage, and corporate treasury services, signaling that the company’s success is not being framed around XRP adoption alone.

That doesn’t mean XRP is irrelevant. It means investors are valuing Ripple as a multi-product digital-asset infrastructure firm, not as “The XRP-business.”

Ripple’s product suite: where XRP is required vs. optional vs. excluded

Ripple’s product suite includes several tools where XRP is required in some cases, optional in others, and not used at all in certain products, depending on whether XRP is needed for liquidity, settlement, or is excluded in favour of traditional trials.

Let’s learn about these products now to find out. 

Ripple Payments / RippleNet (the “network” layer)

Ripple markets its cross-border payments platform as providing “hold, swap, payout” capabilities and access to liquidity across fiat and digital assets (including stablecoins).

The key point: this layer does not inherently require XRP. A customer can use Ripple’s software stack for messaging, compliance, routing, and payout orchestration using fiat rails and accounts. XRP becomes relevant when a customer chooses a liquidity path that uses it.

On-Demand Liquidity (ODL): the clearest “XRP is central” product

ODL is Ripple’s most explicit XRP use case. Ripple’s own documentation states plainly that ODL uses XRP as a bridge currency to exchange one fiat currency for another and settle in real time.

💥 BREAKING:

RIPPLE'S ODL EXPANDS TO BRAZIL, MEXICO, INDIA, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA!#XRP POWERING CROSS-BORDER PAYMENTS WORLDWIDE!

THIS IS MASSIVE! pic.twitter.com/gCp6qIbqqZ

— STEPH IS CRYPTO (@Steph_iscrypto) March 27, 2025

So, if you’re looking for a product where XRP is not just “supported” but structural, this is it.

The market question is: how large can ODL become relative to Ripple’s overall business, and how durable is the bridge-token model versus alternatives that banks may prefer?

Liquidity Hub: a signal that Ripple can decouple products from XRP

Ripple launched Liquidity Hub as a way for enterprises to source crypto liquidity across venues. Reporting around its launch in 2023, XRP was not included in the product (at least initially), a notable data point because it shows Ripple will ship core products without XRP when business or regulatory realities push that direction.

Regardless, the existence of high-profile Ripple offerings where XRP is absent demonstrates that XRP is not structurally required across the portfolio.

RLUSD stablecoin: Ripple explicitly expanding beyond XRP

Ripple announced a USD-backed stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD) in April 2024, and intending it to improve payment experiences and meet customer demand for stablecoin payouts.

RLUSD became publicly available on exchanges in December, 2024. This matters because stablecoins are the leading “regulated-ish” settlement instrument in crypto markets today, and they align more naturally with institutional demands for price stability (more on that when we get into Tom Zschach’s viewpoints).

Custody and institutional infrastructure (and even banking ambitions)

Moreover, Ripple applying for a US national bank charter and pursuing a Federal Reserve master account – moves that, if successful, would place Ripple deeper inside regulated financial plumbing, especially around stablecoin reserves and issuance/redemption.

That is a strategy that can thrive even if XRP’s role is constrained, because it’s about being a regulated infrastructure provider.

Prime brokerage and capital markets adjacency: Hidden Road acquisition

Ripple’s acquisition of prime broker Hidden Road for $1.25 billion is another strong clue. Hidden Road reportedly clears $3 trillion annually for 300+ institutional clients, and RLUSD is being used as collateral in this context.

Again, this is enterprise-scale activity that can be powered by stablecoin collateral and custody rails, not necessarily by XRP as a bridge token.

What XRP is “central” to today

Based on the above arguments, it is evident that XRP is central to:

• ODL and 
• Parts of the XRPL ecosystem – not Ripple’s entire revenue thesis

So it is reasonable to say:

• XRP is central to ODL (by definition, per Ripple’s docs).
• XRP is central to XRPL mechanics as the network’s native token (transaction fees, anti-spam, and bridging in the native DEX).
• XRP is not central to every Ripple product, and Ripple has demonstrated a willingness to build and sell major offerings where XRP is not required (e.g., products oriented around stablecoins, custody, and broader digital asset infrastructure).

That portfolio reality already suggests a more nuanced answer than “yes” or “no”:

XRP is central to one of Ripple’s most distinctive payment mechanisms (ODL), and to the XRPL ecosystem, but Ripple’s overall business model is increasingly designed to succeed even if institutional settlement standards consolidate around stablecoins, tokenized deposits, or central bank money (i.e., CBDCs).

The above argument leads directly into Tom Zschach’s critique.

Tom Zschach (SWIFT) and the institutional preference problem for freely floating bridge tokens

One of the hardest realities for any volatile crypto token pitched for settlement is that most banks and large financial institutions optimize for predictability, governance, and regulatory clarity.

SWIFT’s Chief Innovation Officer, Tom Zschach, has argued in public commentary and is skeptical that a volatile “bridge token” solves the core liquidity problem. In a LinkedIn post, he described bridge tokens as digital chips that still require someone to buy/sell and still rely on pools of real cash on the other side.

🚨 XRP haters are celebrating the SWIFT CIO’s comments like it’s the end of the road for XRP…

Tom Zschach (Chief Innovation Officer at SWIFT) argued banks won’t use XRP because they’ll prefer their own rails, tokenized deposits, or regulated stablecoins.

Here’s why he’s wrong… pic.twitter.com/kfMLgUWSBU

— $589 (@589CTO) September 4, 2025

Whether you agree with him or not, his view reflects a mainstream institutional stance: 

Why institutions often prefer tokenized deposits, regulated stablecoins, or central bank money

1. Price stability: A freely floating token introduces FX risk during the settlement window – even if settlement is fast.
2. Balance-sheet and treasury treatment: Banks care how an instrument is treated under capital/liquidity rules, accounting, and internal risk policy.
3. Redemption certainty: “Can I redeem this 1:1 into bank money under a clear legal regime?” is a different question than “Can I sell this token on an exchange?”
4. Operational governance: Institutions generally want settlement assets with clear issuer obligations, oversight, and standardized compliance hooks.

You can see the macro-regulatory direction in how central bank institutions talk about stablecoins and tokenized finance. For example, BIS warned that stablecoins can fall short as “sound money” and emphasized a future tokenized system integrating central bank money and commercial deposits under stronger governance.

Where that leaves XRP

XRP’s pitch in ODL is that it can act as a neutral bridge asset and reduce the need for pre-funded accounts. Technically, ODL can work: it can source liquidity on demand and settle fast using XRP.

If you actually understand global liquidity, you know exactly why $XRP is becoming unstoppable 🚨👇

Ripple's ODL runs across 40+ markets, Eliminating pre-funding, unlocking 24/7 FX, and cutting costs by up to 90% for real enterprises

This isn’t theory, it’s the invisible layer… pic.twitter.com/SuuIVkefUu

— X Finance Bull (@Xfinancebull) December 8, 2025

But Zschach’s core institutional objection is less about speed and more about what kind of money institutions ultimately want to settle in. If the “end-state” for major financial institutions becomes:

• Tokenized deposits under bank control
• Regulated stablecoins with clear redemption; or
• Central bank money (wholesale CBDC / tokenized central bank settlement),
  then the total addressable market for a freely floating bridge token can be capped, especially for the most regulated flows.

This is exactly why Ripple launching RLUSD is strategically coherent: it gives Ripple a settlement instrument that better matches institutional preferences for price stability and redeemability.

Pre-SEC vs post-SEC: How legal risk reshaped XRP’s practical role

The legal risk distinction between pre-SEC and post-SEC periods reshaped XRP’s regulatory risk profile, changing how XRP is perceived and used in practical terms.

The SEC case created product and distribution friction around XRP

Ripple’s SEC litigation began in 2020, and produced a landmark 2023 ruling distinguishing between types of XRP sales. Notably, the court found XRP was a security in certain institutional-sale contexts, but not when sold on public exchanges; the case later concluded with penalties and the SEC ending the litigation.

In May 2025, the SEC announced a settlement framework, and public SEC materials also referenced the history of the court’s findings and penalties.

Even without debating every legal nuance, the business impact is straightforward:

• US distribution uncertainty makes enterprise procurement harder.
• Counterparties don’t like assets whose legal status might shift.
• Product teams often “design around” uncertainty by emphasizing assets and flows that are clearly permissible.

This context helps explain why Ripple could ship or position products where XRP was excluded, and why Ripple accelerated its broader “infrastructure company” posture.

Post-case clarity enables, but does not force, XRP centrality

Once legal uncertainty diminishes, Ripple gains optionality:

• It can push harder on ODL corridors that use XRP.
• Exchanges and institutions may be more comfortable engaging.

But potential is not a promise. The market might still prefer stablecoins and tokenized deposits for many high-value regulated flows, for reasons Zschach highlights.

So the post-SEC era is best understood as restoring XRP as an option, not automatically making it the core of Ripple’s model.

What the $40B valuation suggests about Ripple’s strategy and doesn’t prove about XRP

A private valuation is not a philosophical statement; it’s a bet. Here are the most defensible inferences you can draw, grounded in the public reporting about Ripple’s fundraising and product direction:

1. Investors are buying “Ripple as infrastructure,” not “XRP as destiny”

Ripple’s allocation of additional capital toward custody solutions, stablecoin infrastructure, prime brokerage, and treasury services reflects a strategic effort to establish itself as a comprehensive institutional digital-finance platform.

That is consistent with a world where:

• XRP remains useful in some corridors and use cases; but
• The dominant settlement instruments for regulated institutions are stablecoins/tokenized deposits/central bank money.

2. Ripple is positioning itself for regulated money rails

The pursuit of a bank charter and Fed master account is a loud signal that Ripple wants to operate more closely to a regulated monetary infrastructure, particularly relevant for stablecoin reserve custody and issuance/redemption mechanics.

This direction tends to reduce dependency on a volatile token as the core settlement asset.

3. XRP still matters because Ripple has deep XRP exposure and a differentiated product (ODL)

Ripple continues to publish disclosures about XRP holdings and escrow in its XRP Markets Reports, reflecting that XRP is part of the company’s ecosystem and balance sheet story.

And ODL’s design still makes XRP a functional bridge asset.

So, even if the company’s not “XRP-only,” XRP can still be strategically important.

What the valuation does not prove

• It does not prove XRP is undervalued, because equity value and token value reflect different claim structures and risk profiles. 
• It does not prove institutions will adopt XRP broadly for settlement, especially if they converge on tokenized deposits, stablecoins, or central bank settlement assets.

A clearer answer: “Central” depends on which Ripple you mean

To avoid fuzzy conclusions, it helps to separate Ripple into three “layers,” then ask where XRP is central:

Layer 1: Ripple’s enterprise payments liquidity mechanism (ODL)

XRP is central. It’s literally the bridge currency in the product design.

Layer 2: Ripple’s broader enterprise payments platform and infrastructure stack

XRP is optional. Ripple’s payments stack can support stablecoins and other digital assets, and the company explicitly positioned RLUSD as part of its payments solution.

Layer 3: Ripple’s emerging institutional financial-services footprint 

XRP is not structurally required. Ripple’s expanding focus on stablecoin collateral, custody, and institutional trading services reflects business lines that can scale independently of XRP as the settlement asset.

The most defensible conclusion, therefore, is: XRP remains central to ODL and to the XRP Ledger’s core mechanics, but Ripple’s $40B valuation aligns more closely with a diversified infrastructure strategy, spanning payments orchestration, stablecoins (RLUSD), custody, and institutional services, capable of thriving even if banks ultimately prefer regulated, redeemable settlement instruments over volatile bridge tokens, consistent with views expressed by Tom Zschach.

What to watch next (concrete indicators of XRP centrality)

If you want to measure whether XRP is becoming more central to Ripple’s business (not just its brand), watch for observable, verifiable signals:

1. ODL volume share: Does Ripple publish metrics showing increasing payments volume specifically routed through XRP-based ODL paths (as opposed to fiat-only or stablecoin routes)? Note: Ripple’s markets reporting and disclosures are the closest public window.
2. Enterprise preference shifts: Do major financial institutions publicly endorse XRP settlement, or do they emphasize tokenized deposits/stablecoins/CBDC pilots? (Zschach’s commentary represents the latter mindset)
3. RLUSD integration depth: If RLUSD becomes a dominant rail inside Ripple’s payments and institutional stack, that’s evidence Ripple is aligning with the “predictable instrument” preference.
4. Regulatory posture: Progress on banking/charter efforts would likely pull Ripple’s core business deeper into regulated money.

Bottom line

Ripple’s $40B private valuation doesn’t “settle the debate” about XRP, but it does narrow the range of plausible narratives.

If XRP were truly the only engine that could justify Ripple’s scale, then Ripple’s equity story would rise and fall mainly on XRP’s institutional settlement adoption.

Instead, the reporting around Ripple’s fundraising and strategy shows a company building a broad institutional stack, payments, custody, stablecoins, and capital-markets infrastructure, that can scale even in a world where banks prefer regulated, redeemable settlement instruments over volatile bridge tokens.

So, is XRP central to Ripple’s business model?

It is essential to ODL, but no longer essential to Ripple’s broader $40B growth strategy. The company is intentionally diversifying so its success does not hinge on XRP adoption.