Community Trust ScoreVerified
Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, has stepped forward to correct what he calls misleading narratives surrounding XRP and Ripple’s latest stablecoin initiative. His response comes in the wake of remarks made by Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long, who recently raised questions about the origins of XRP and the company’s choice to issue its RLUSD stablecoin on Ethereum.
Speaking during a podcast interview, Long suggested that Ripple’s early activities bore the hallmarks of an initial coin offering (ICO)—a form of public fundraising often scrutinized by regulators. She also questioned Ripple’s decision to expand RLUSD beyond the XRP Ledger, implying that the move could reflect a lack of faith in its own infrastructure.
Schwartz quickly pushed back, using social media platform X to reject Long’s claims as inaccurate. He stated that Ripple never held an ICO and that the company’s decision to issue RLUSD on both Ethereum and the XRP Ledger is a strategic one, not a shift in core principles.
“I’m available whenever you want to chat about the facts about Ripple, our stablecoin RLUSD, the XRP Ledger, and its native token XRP,” Schwartz wrote on X.
XRP’s Origins: No ICO, Says XRPL Validator
Supporting Schwartz’s statement was XRPL validator @Vet_X0, who took a deeper dive into XRP’s origins. He clarified that when the XRP Ledger was launched in 2012, the entire 100 billion XRP supply was created in a single genesis block. At the time, the tokens had no market value, and Ripple did not solicit public investment or conduct a token sale.
“This wasn’t an ICO. There was no fundraising through a token event,” Vet explained. “The tokens were not sold to raise capital—there was no promise of future gains.”
This contrasts with the structure of Ethereum’s 2014 ICO, in which Ether was sold publicly in exchange for Bitcoin, raising millions to fund the network’s development.
Vet also addressed another claim made by Long: that Ripple exercises central control over the XRP Ledger. He pushed back strongly, calling her remarks technically uninformed and misleading.
According to Vet, the XRP Ledger operates as a decentralized, open-source network. There are currently over 1,000 nodes and more than 100 active validators—many of which are operated by independent institutions, not Ripple. He emphasized that Ripple cannot unilaterally control updates or changes to the network, further debunking claims of centralization.
RLUSD Stablecoin: Multi-Chain by Design
Much of Long’s skepticism also centered on Ripple’s new stablecoin, RLUSD. She suggested that launching the asset on Ethereum, rather than exclusively on XRPL, could indicate waning confidence in Ripple’s own blockchain infrastructure.
Vet dismissed that interpretation, explaining that Ripple’s decision to issue RLUSD on both Ethereum and the XRP Ledger is a deliberate multi-chain strategy aimed at improving liquidity and user accessibility. He pointed out that Ripple Payments and RLUSD will continue to operate natively on XRPL.
“This isn’t abandoning XRPL—it’s about reaching more users and enhancing liquidity across ecosystems,” Vet wrote.
Ethereum, he said, offers additional reach and interoperability, allowing RLUSD to integrate into the broader DeFi and Web3 ecosystem while still benefiting from the unique features of XRPL.
He also used the opportunity to highlight XRPL’s pioneering role in blockchain development. Unlike many newer platforms, the XRP Ledger includes a built-in decentralized exchange (DEX) and supports native tokenization without requiring complex smart contracts. According to Vet, the XRPL continues to evolve, with regular upgrades and active community engagement.
Ripple’s Response Reflects Ongoing Scrutiny
The public exchange between Schwartz and Long reflects the ongoing tension between crypto projects and traditional financial leaders—even among those advocating for regulation. As Ripple continues to face scrutiny over XRP’s classification and its expanding stablecoin ecosystem, it remains under the regulatory spotlight.
Ripple’s legal battle with the SEC over whether XRP qualifies as a security is still unfolding. While partial legal victories have brought some clarity, XRP’s exact regulatory status remains unresolved, keeping any related discussion in the realm of financial and legal controversy.
The debate over whether Ripple conducted an ICO is more than just semantics—it plays into broader legal and regulatory discussions that could shape the future of crypto compliance in the U.S. and beyond.
Final Thoughts
David Schwartz’s response, supported by core XRPL contributors, underscores Ripple’s ongoing effort to clarify its mission, defend its technology, and expand its reach across blockchains. The company continues to challenge misperceptions while pushing for broader adoption—both on its native ledger and across new ecosystems like Ethereum.
While criticisms from industry figures like Caitlin Long will likely persist, Ripple appears determined to set the record straight and ensure its actions are seen not as retreats, but as strategic steps in an evolving blockchain landscape
