Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
XRP Former CTO David Schwartz responds to doubts that low-value transactions should not be regarded as evidence of blockchain flaws.
A data article on XRP Ledger's (XRPL) chain activity triggered a strong rebuttal from David Schwartz, former chief technology officer of Ripple. He questioned whether the large number of low-value transactions should be regarded as evidence of blockchain's weak performance.
The controversy stems from a post posted by social media user@ScamDetective5. The user cited XRP Ledger's activity data for August 2026, claiming that during the month, only 793 accounts accounted for 93% of the network's transactions, and described these accounts as "bots" and spammers. In addition, the user also pointed out that less than 1% of XRPL activity represents real human payment behavior, and this situation has remained unchanged for eight years, and accordingly called XRP Ledger a "ghost chain."
The truth and misunderstanding behind the data
Bitquery data released accompanying this view shows that XRP Ledger has processed 5.06 billion transactions since 2013. Based on specific data for August 2026, the report pointed out that these 793 accounts generated 93.2% of network traffic. Data estimates show that only 0.80% of traffic represents human-scale payment behavior. Meanwhile, nearly half of the active accounts ceased activity after sending a single transaction, while the median account held 12 XRP.
Faced with such allegations, David Schwartz responded on social media: "This is a very strange statement. Yes, it is really very cheap. Yes, people can use it to do useful things or use it to do useless things. If it becomes more expensive and fewer people engage in low-value activities, does that mean it becomes better?"
Core controversy: Costs and utility
Schwartz's response focuses on transaction costs and the diversity of activities supported by XRPL. He admitted that the Internet is cheap to use and that users can use it for both high-efficiency purposes and low-efficiency operations. His core argument is that reducing low-value activities by increasing transaction costs does not necessarily increase the overall value of the network.
This response challenges the popular belief that a large number of low-value or automated activities automatically reduces the value of the underlying blockchain. Instead, Schwartz suggested that low cost and high throughput are themselves important manifestations of network capabilities.
Centrality of XRPL activities and fee mechanism
Bitquery data also includes information on transaction fees. The report shows that all fees collected by XRP Ledger since its launch totaled approximately $7.6 million, and these fees were not allocated to any single entity, but were instead destroyed to maintain the deflationary mechanism.
The debate, initiated by@ScamDetective5 and responded to by David Schwartz, is essentially a collision of two standards for evaluating online activity. The former focuses on the monopoly of trading volume by a few accounts and the low proportion of human payments; the latter questions that regardless of the value of a single transaction, low-cost transactions should not in themselves be a negative indicator of the usefulness of XRPL.
In the end, the debate left a core question: What are the criteria for evaluating blockchain activity? Is it mainly about the amount of human payments involved, or is it about the network's ability to support different types of transactions at low cost?
Disclaimer : The contents of this article are for reference only and do not constitute any investment advice. The views expressed in this article may contain the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the position of any media platform. Readers are advised to conduct adequate research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by readers is at their own risk. This platform is not responsible for any financial losses.
