Debate is intensifying within the cryptocurrency community regarding the decentralization of Ripple’s XRP Ledger (XRPL). This discourse has been notably fueled by Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, who has categorized the XRPL as “centralized.” In a recent online post, Bons shared his concerns over what he perceives as centralized blockchains, specifically highlighting the XRP Ledger’s Unique Node List (UNL) as an example of a permissioned validator structure.
Bons emphasized that the UNL configuration effectively bestows permissioned validator status, arguing that any divergence from this centrally published list could lead to a fork of the blockchain, thereby granting the Ripple Foundation significant control over the network. He stated, “Ripple has a ‘Unique Node List,’ which makes the validators effectively permissioned. Any divergence from this centrally published list would cause a fork, effectively giving the Ripple Foundation & company absolute power & control over the chain.” Additionally, he included other networks—such as Canton, Stellar, Hedera, and Algorand—in his critiques.
Bons framed decentralization as a binary choice, asserting that a blockchain is either fully permissionless or not. He argued that any permissioned components are “anti-thetical” to the principles of cryptocurrency, declaring that “the future of finance is decentralized & permissionless” and urging the community to reject permissioned chains and advocate for decentralization.
In his critique, Bons outlined what he views as the sole categories of blockchain consensus: Proof of Stake (PoS), Proof of Work (PoW), and Proof of Authority (PoA). He suggested that any consensus mechanism falling outside of PoS or PoW is, by definition, PoA. This perspective incited significant responses throughout the community.
David Schwartz, Ripple’s CTO Emeritus and one of the XRP Ledger’s chief architects, responded with a robust defense of the ledger’s architecture. He pushed back against Bons’ assertion that Ripple has “absolute power & control” over the network. Schwartz explained that the design of the XRP Ledger was intentional in that it sought to prevent Ripple from exerting dominance over the system, particularly amid regulatory pressures. He noted, “Ripple, for example, has to honor US court orders. It cannot say no… 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 countered claims made by Bons regarding the possibility of double-spending and transaction censorship within the XRP Ledger. He clarified that validators do not have the ability to force an honest node to accept a double-spend or censor transactions. Each node operates independently in enforcing protocol rules and can only consider the validators listed on its UNL. If a validator acts dishonestly, an honest node simply refuses to acknowledge it as a legitimate participant.
While Schwartz acknowledged that it is theoretically possible for a coalition of validators to impede the network’s functionality from the vantage point of honest nodes, he differentiated this from double-spending, characterizing it as a scenario akin to a dishonest majority attack. In this case, he proposed that the solution would involve selecting a new UNL.
He drew comparisons to other blockchain networks, asserting that transaction censorship and reordering are prevalent issues in systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but have not occurred within XRPL. He also highlighted the protocol’s unique method for resolving double-spending. The XRP Ledger operates consensus rounds approximately every five seconds, allowing validators to vote on transaction inclusions, with honest nodes capable of deferring transactions to subsequent rounds if a supermajority of trusted validators did not acknowledge them within the cutoff.
In concluding his defense, Schwartz stated that the requirement for a UNL exists to prevent malicious parties from creating an excessive number of validators or obstructing consensus. He pointed out that if Ripple had the capacity to censor transactions or facilitate double spends, using such power would irreparably harm trust in the XRPL, which he claimed was designed to avoid bestowing excessive control to any single entity, including Ripple itself.
