The Ripple CTO David Schwartz recently confirmed that Ripple owes no obligation to hold XRP, blaming this idea on XRP security misrepresentation.
His comments came in response to an ongoing discussion about Ripple’s role in XRP’s distribution and its responsibilities toward token holders.
For context, Bitcoin advocate and XRP critic, Pierre Rochard, argued that Ripple has no obligation to ensure XRP holders benefit from its actions. He asserted that the company is free to sell its large XRP holdings, even if it negatively impacts retail investors. According to him, this is what makes XRP a non-security.
Ripple Has No Obligation to HODL Its XRP Bag
Interestingly, Schwartz agreed, emphasizing that Ripple, like any other business, operates in its own best interest. He compared XRP ownership to possessing early artwork from an emerging artist.
100% correct. IMO, Ripple can, will, and should act in its own interest. You should not expect Ripple to act in your interest to the detriment of its own interest or those of its shareholders.
— David "JoelKatz" Schwartz (@JoelKatz) March 4, 2025
While investors might hope the artist continues to create value that benefits their holdings, there is no obligation for them to do so. He stressed that neither Ripple nor any company should be expected to act against its own interests to serve investors.
Amid this disclosure, the Ripple CTO also pointed out that Ripple has been an established player in the industry for nearly 14 years. The company holds more XRP than it could feasibly liquidate in a short timeframe. Notably, this alleviates fears that it could dump all its holdings in the short-term.
I'd also add that Ripple has been here for about 14 years now. We have more XRP than we could possibly monetize in a short period of time, so there's no way to avoid us being here for quite a bit longer. Ripple being the only successful crypto company is as absurd as Google being…
— David "JoelKatz" Schwartz (@JoelKatz) March 4, 2025
Also, Schwartz dismissed the idea that Ripple could be the only major crypto company to succeed, likening the notion to expecting Google to be the sole winner in the internet industry.
Notably, his comments echo Ripple’s defense in its ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), initiated in December 2020. For context, the SEC alleged that Ripple had an obligation to ensure XRP holders observed gains on their holdings, a theory that the firm has rebuffed.
XRP Not a Security
Following Schwartz’s latest remarks, a prominent Ripple critic who goes by “ScamDaddy” shared a screenshot of the conversation. He questioned why anyone would be surprised by Ripple prioritizing its business goals, implying that this has always been clear.
Schwartz responded, suggesting that most of the confusion about Ripple’s role in XRP’s ecosystem comes from those pushing the narrative that XRP is a security. He implied that this group has deliberately misrepresented the relationship between Ripple and XRP.
“It’s mostly the ‘XRP is a security” crowd that deliberately created confusion about the relationship between Ripple and XRP,” the Ripple executive said in a post on X.
It's mostly the "XRP is a security" crowd that deliberately created confusion about the relationship between Ripple and XRP.
— David "JoelKatz" Schwartz (@JoelKatz) March 5, 2025
Notably, further discussion sprang up when XRPL validator Vet pointed out that individuals who believe Ripple owes XRP holders an obligation to HODL are also those claiming that Ripple was responsible for issuing XRP.
In response, “ScamDaddy” acknowledged that the term “issued” is widely debated but maintained that Ripple’s founders created both the XRP Ledger and the token, later distributing it.
However, Vet countered this, clarifying that the XRP Ledger existed before Ripple as a company. He acknowledged that there was an overlap between the individuals who developed the technology and those who later established Ripple, but he stressed that the two entities were not synonymous.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
