In a recent discussion, Ripple's Chief Technology Officer (CTO) David Schwartz clarified misconceptions about the value and liquidity of XRP, the digital asset used in Ripple's payment solutions. The discussion, held on Monday, provided insights into the relationship between XRP's price and its suitability for high-value transactions.
Schwartz addressed a long-standing debate on whether financial institutions would prefer a lower XRP price to optimize transaction processes. Dismissing this presumption as an overreach, Schwartz explained that higher prices tend to correlate with higher liquidity, leading to cheaper payments. He likened the situation to Bitcoin's price evolution: as Bitcoin's value rose and crossed the $10,000 mark, its susceptibility to price fluctuations for larger transactions decreased due to the increased value requiring a smaller share of total assets for significant transfers.
Drawing parallels with XRP, he emphasized that a rising XRP price would make it a superior channel for high-value transactions within Ripple's payment solutions. At the time of this report, XRP was trading at $0.4952.
Beyond this discussion, Schwartz has been actively addressing various XRP-related queries from the community. When confronted with a Twitter proposition suggesting XRP could disproportionately benefit the top 1%, Schwartz responded with a rebuttal, querying the exact meaning behind "the top 1%". He stressed that XRP empowers anyone wanting to use the ledger to track the ownership and exchange of assets.
Schwartz also addressed rumors about the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to 'hack' XRP. He debunked these speculations by stating that a 'hack' of XRP would be nonsensical given that the ledger contents and rules are public knowledge. He further assured that any exploited bug would be fixed promptly, preventing repeated hacking attempts via the same method.
Lastly, when questioned about a potential link between an old patent of his and XRP's architectural design, Schwartz dismissed any significant connection, stating that the patent had become mostly irrelevant.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.