A public exchange between Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons and Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has reignited debate over one of the crypto industry’s most persistent questions: how decentralized is the XRP Ledger (XRPL), and how should decentralization be measured?
The discussion unfolded on X, where Bons challenged the structure and governance model of several blockchains, including Stellar, Canton, Hedera, and the XRP Ledger. He further questioned the XRPL’s validator framework and raised concerns about centralization similar to someone controlling the majority of mining power in Bitcoin.
Schwartz responded with a technical clarification that set the pace for the rest of the thread. He debunked Bon’s claims, emphasizing that the XRP Ledger and the Bitcoin network are not the same.
He highlighted a major distinction between XRPL and BTC’s network models. On the XRP Ledger, a validator would count the number of validators that agree with their node. Thus, that node would not double spend or censor unless the validator wants it to, for some reason.
XRPL vs. Bitcoin: Different Models of Decentralization
Schwartz’s response highlights a fundamental distinction between Bitcoin and XRPL. Bitcoin relies on proof-of-work mining, where decentralization is tied to distributed hash power and competition among miners. XRPL, by contrast, uses the XRP Ledger Consensus Protocol (XLCP). Each node selects a list of trusted validators and requires a majority agreement before transactions are finalized.
According to Schwartz, this structure prevents unilateral censorship or double spending because no single validator, including Ripple, can independently control consensus. In his view, comparing XRPL directly to Bitcoin’s mining model misses the architectural differences between the two systems.
The exchange reflects a broader debate in crypto about whether decentralization must follow Bitcoin’s template or whether alternative consensus designs can achieve similar resistance to control through different mechanisms.
Ripple Doesn’t Aim to Retain Control of XRPL
Beyond defending the technical model, Schwartz also addressed a long-standing criticism surrounding Ripple’s historical role in the network. He explained that the original XRPL developers deliberately chose not to retain control over the ledger. While Ripple played a major role in building and promoting the ecosystem, the protocol was structured so that governance and validation would not remain under corporate authority.
This point is central to the ongoing scrutiny of XRPL. Critics often argue that Ripple’s early influence over validator lists created a perception of centralized oversight. Schwartz countered that nodes are free to choose their own validators and that Ripple’s relative influence has declined as more independent validators joined the network over time.
In practice, he argues, the system was designed from inception to prevent forced changes or unilateral control. No single entity can compel the network to validate transactions or alter rules without broad validator agreement.
French Banking Giant Launches Euro Stablecoin on XRPL With Ripple’s Support
Why the Debate Still Rages On
The disagreement underscores a deeper divide in how decentralization is defined across blockchain networks. In Bitcoin, decentralization is closely associated with mining distribution. In XRPL’s case, it centers on validator diversity and consensus thresholds.
Such debates extend beyond XRP. Ethereum’s staking concentration, Bitcoin mining pool dominance, and validator distribution on other high-throughput chains have all faced similar scrutiny. As blockchain networks mature and attract institutional attention, governance structures increasingly shape both market perception and regulatory narratives.
The exchange between Bons and Schwartz further shows how decentralization remains one of crypto’s most contested concepts. According to Bons, permissioned networks defy the very essence of the blockchain and cryptocurrency movement. However, he acknowledges that permissionless networks are only one part of the wide spectrum of decentralization, and decentralization does not look the same for every blockchain out there.
Evans Kelvin
Temitope Olajide
