A new analysis explores how much XRP would need to be burned for its price to match Ethereum.
With XRP trading at $2 and Ethereum at $2,823, the comparison highlights the enormous impact circulating supply has on valuation.
Specifically, XRP has a circulating supply of 60.25 billion coins, giving it a market cap of roughly $120.5 billion at $2 per token. Ethereum, at $2,823, has a much smaller circulating supply of 120.69 million ETH, resulting in a market cap of about $340.5 billion.
For XRP to reach the same price as Ethereum, it would need to support a similar market cap. That can only happen by drastically shrinking its circulating supply to levels comparable with Ethereum’s.
The comparison shows that XRP’s enormous token count of over 60 billion is a primary reason its price cannot approach Ethereum’s range under current conditions.
The Supply Adjustment XRP Would Need
If XRP’s circulating supply were reduced from 60.25 billion to the same 120.69 million units Ethereum has in circulation, the price of each XRP would mathematically rise to around $2,823, assuming its market cap matched Ethereum’s. Achieving this would require eliminating almost the entire supply of XRP.
Specifically, reducing XRP’s supply from 60.25 billion to 120.69 million would mean burning approximately 60.13 billion tokens. Only then would scarcity, in theory, increase enough to push its valuation into Ethereum territory.
What a 60 Billion Burn Would Mean
Burning such a large quantity of XRP would fundamentally transform the asset. Scarcity would surge, liquidity would tighten, and the remaining tokens could become significantly more valuable. In theory, this could lift the price toward $2,823, aligning it with Ethereum’s current valuation.
However, this scenario remains extremely unlikely. Implementing a coordinated burn of more than 60 billion tokens would require community support, participation from major holders, and Ripple itself. In particular, this scenario would require people to permanently give up their XRP holdings.
This raises the question of who would actually benefit from any resulting price surge if many holders had already sacrificed their tokens to enable it.
Meanwhile, supply reduction alone doesn’t determine price. Without sustained demand, even a drastic supply cut wouldn’t guarantee Ethereum-level pricing for XRP.
Realistic Long-Term Supply Reductions
Recent discussions around XRP’s deflationary nature highlight a more gradual path. XRP burns tokens through transaction fees, averaging roughly 5,000 tokens per day.
Some projections suggest that if this rises to 15,000 or even 20,000 daily, total supply could shrink more noticeably by 2035.
However, at the current burn rate, only around 1.8 million XRP are burned per year — insignificant compared to the 100 billion maximum supply.
Meanwhile, analysts studying long-term burn scenarios estimate that even with rising network activity, XRP might shed only a few dozen million tokens over the next decade — far from the 60 billion required to create Ethereum-like scarcity.
A separate model explores what XRP’s price would look like if the circulating supply fell to 40 billion tokens. Assuming the market cap remains around $179 billion, XRP could trade near $4.48.
If demand grows while supply declines, the price could rise toward $6 or even higher. In more aggressive scenarios that combine burns with increased utility, some projections place long-term values in the $12 to $16 range.
Theory Only, Not a Practical Path
Burning more than 60 billion XRP to match Ethereum’s supply is mathematically sound but economically unrealistic. Ripple and other large holders are unlikely to destroy assets worth over $180 billion at today’s prices.
Stellar previously executed a massive supply burn and saw little lasting impact on its token price, casting doubt on the effectiveness of engineered scarcity on price.
A more realistic future for XRP lies in gradual, organic developments. Token burns through regular network activity, and the ongoing adoption of Ripple’s payment solutions remains the true driver of long-term value.
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.
