2025-12-26 07:24:01

A detail that has always been overlooked by the market. Even before the establishment of the famous 55 billion XRP custodial mechanism in 2017, Ripple actually had the right to sell an unlimited amount of tokens monthly.

Ripple's Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz recently hit the key point—he actually voted against implementing the custodial system back then. What's the reason? In his view, the so-called "market predictability" cannot compensate for Ripple's loss of financial flexibility. From another perspective, without these custodial constraints, Ripple could have injected a billion-level supply of XRP into the market at any time in history.

This is interesting. The custodial arrangement, which has been portrayed as "protecting investors' interests," essentially became a voluntarily imposed chain on Ripple. How does the market view this? Schwartz's explanation is worth pondering: the current XRP price has already priced in these "predictable monthly sales." In other words, all public information has been factored into the price.

The key question arises. Investors never care about what is already on the table. What can truly shake the price are the logical gaps that the market has not fully understood. The custodial system may seem like a safeguard, but in reality, it limits Ripple's flexibility—so is this trade-off worth it? Has the market fully priced in the costs of these constraints? Or is there a deeper information gap hidden beneath?

This reminds us of an old rule in the crypto world: surface-level "good news" and "protection mechanisms" are often the most deceptive. True insight requires looking behind well-known facts to find the overlooked logical loopholes.

XRP-1.44%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

5 Likes

Reward
5
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LootboxPhobia

· 8h ago

So Schwartz is actually saying that he was the one who saw through the situation back then. --- Wait, is this logic reversed? Restrictions have become protections? Then everything we criticized before was in vain. --- Wow, really? Information asymmetry is always the most valuable. --- Custody is just a psychological placebo; the core still depends on what Ripple itself wants to do. --- Got it, surface-level protection barriers are actually shackles; we misunderstood from the beginning. --- It's not surprising that no one paid attention to these details—they only love to look at the surface "good news" in the crypto world. --- It seems the problem isn't whether custody is worth it, but whether the market has truly digested this logic. --- Schwartz's words need to be carefully considered. Flexibility versus predictability—who really benefits?

View OriginalReply0

DataChief

· 11h ago

I've already said it, custody is just a facade... Ripple is actually smarter to use it against itself. So the question is, is the current XRP price still digesting this old framework? Schwartz's words hit the point—no flexibility = no room for maneuver, who loses more in this situation? Information asymmetry is the key; don't be fooled by the superficial protection mechanisms. Imagine if there were no custody, what would happen if billions were poured in... the market should have reacted long ago. This matter is worth deep reflection; the real opportunity might be in areas the market hasn't yet responded to.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWatcher

· 11h ago

Damn, Schwartz was against custody back then? That reversal is pretty intense. --- So XRP's current price is actually trapped? What if the custody expires? --- It's that same "superficial good news but actually a trap" argument, sounds pretty intimidating. --- Information gap? Feels like every time they mention an information gap, it ultimately comes down to luck. --- That logic is a bit convoluted. To put it simply, Ripple probably regrets it. --- The real issue is no one knows how much Ripple still holds, that's the real bomb. --- The custody mechanism now looks like a sham, originally meant to protect the market, but instead it limited their own moves. --- Wait, according to this logic, is XRP undervalued in the long term? Or am I overcomplicating things? --- Stop it, stop all these metaphysical analyses. Isn't on-chain data more reliable? --- Schwartz is being honest, but he's probably just trying to whitewash past decisions.

View OriginalReply0

EagleEye

· 11h ago

Thanks for sharing this insight, very helpful

Reply0

ImpermanentPhilosopher

· 11h ago

Wait, did Schwartz oppose custody back then? What does that mean now? This 55 billion lockchain has instead become a form of protection. Basically, Ripple self-limited its flexibility to gain market psychological comfort. But the real chips were already there. Regarding information asymmetry... I always feel like everyone is being led by the nose. Things that are visible are already priced in, but what about the invisible ones? Damn, it turns out that the protection mechanism is actually the biggest trap. XRP's current price doesn't reflect the true cost of these constraints at all, which is a bit concerning. Ripple is actually using self-imposed restrictions to gain trust, but does the market really believe in this? I have my doubts. Initially opposing custody, what was that really for? Was it really just about money, so simple? The market hasn't fully understood this logic yet; it will become clearer over time. This is the most interesting part of Web3 — what you think are protection mechanisms are actually just smokescreens.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentSage

· 11h ago

Ha, Schwartz's words are essentially implying "we are actually trapped," and the market can't see through it, which is just incredible. The true retail investors always look at public information, while smart money has already moved on to the next question. So the price of XRP... is actually pricing in Ripple's lost "flexibility"? Just thinking about it is absurd.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 11h ago

Damn, Schwartz was against custody back then? Thinking about the logic in reverse is pretty clever. Ripple actively putting itself in shackles actually seems more sincere? --- Another pretense of "protecting investors," but actually self-castration, hilarious --- So the question is, do those information gaps still exist? Or have they been eaten up by big players already? --- That's why I never trust any "voluntary commitments," all talk when it comes to interests --- Wait, if it was priced in early on, what is Schwartz trying to imply by bringing this up now? --- The real details are hidden in "why they said this," not "what was said" --- If you keep playing with the logic of XRP, it feels even deeper than the套路 of TradFi

View OriginalReply0