XRP Ledger was deliberately engineered to prevent Ripple from controlling it, Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz claimed, describing it as a design choice meant to shield the network from corporate influence, court orders, and regulatory pressure.
Why Ripple Designed XRPL to Survive Even Court Orders and Corporate Pressure
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz defended the foundational decentralization of the Ledger on social media platform X on Feb. 24, outlining why its architecture was deliberately built to prevent Ripple from exercising control over the network.
Emphasizing what he described as a point he does not make often enough, he said:
“We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it. It’s not because we weren’t 100% confident we were.”
Schwartz explained that the decision was shaped by legal and corporate constraints as much as technical philosophy. He stated: “Given the regulatory environment and practical realities of being a company and having investors, there was simply no way we could be assured that we were in control over our own actions.”
He continued: “Ripple, for example, has to honor U.S. court orders. It cannot say no. I think U.S. courts are great and generally issue orders that make sense for good reasons. But could a U.S. court decide that international comity with an oppressive [regime] was more important than XRPL or Ripple? We were quite concerned that could come down either way.”
The Ripple CTO Emeritus added:
“We absolutely and clearly decided that we DID NOT WANT control and that it would be to our own benefit to not have that control.”
Schwartz further emphasized the distinction between voluntary trust and structural dependence within networks. He stated: “We always want people to trust us. People trusting me is all upside for me. I want as much of that as possible. So does Ripple. But people having to trust me or Ripple or anyone else to use XRPL is all downside for us. We knew very early that we wanted as little of that as possible.”
He concluded: “We designed it so that we could not own or control it because that was the only way to ensure that nobody could own or control it.” The XRPL is designed to limit centralized authority and, according to Schwartz, help reduce the risk of corporate influence, regulatory intervention, and potential misuse of power, though the extent of Ripple’s practical influence over the network remains debated.
FAQ 🧭
- Why did Ripple design XRPL so it could not control the network? Ripple structured XRPL in a way Schwartz says prevents it from directly controlling the network to avoid legal, regulatory, and corporate risks that could affect investors and network stability.
- How do court orders influence Ripple’s approach to network governance? Ripple must comply with U.S. court orders, so Schwartz argues that removing direct company control helps reduce the impact of external legal pressures.
- What does this design mean for XRP holders? The structure is intended to reduce the risk of corporate interference impacting ’s long-term value and market confidence.
- How does XRPL limit corporate influence over its operations? Its consensus model is designed so that, according to Schwartz, no single company, including Ripple, can dictate network outcomes.
Author: Kevin Helms
Source: Bitcoin
Reviewed By: Editorial Team
