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 CyberCapital founder Justin Bunce questioned XRP decentralization, triggering a new round of controversy.
XRP has once again faced severe scrutiny recently. CyberCapital founder Justin Bons has sparked a firestorm over decentralization of the web, accusing the XRP ecosystem of misleading retail investors.
In a heated comment, Bunce questioned Ripple's influence on XRP ledgers and cited controversial software updates and verifier list controls as evidence that the network may be much more centralized than its supporters claim. The explosive allegations have rekindled a long-running debate about who really holds the power behind the XRP.
Buns lashes out on XRP's closed source code issues
Justin Buns launched a fierce attack on XRP's decentralization claims, arguing that promoting the Internet as decentralized without retail investors knowing anything about its alleged limitations is highly misleading. He even called it "naked fraud," fueling a long-running debate about Ripple and other influential entities 'control of XRP's books.
The core of Buns criticism was a software update that he claimed caused XRP to run closed source code for about two weeks. With the update expected to become mandatory on October 9, he warned that verifiers who refuse to comply could risk being excluded from the network. In his view, this situation raises significant questions about the independence of the verifier and who ultimately determines the XRP ledger rules.
The analyst also refuted the claim that "hidden code is to address critical security vulnerabilities." He cited Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana as examples, pointing out that in these networks, developers can urge verifiers to install emergency updates while providing the corresponding source code without immediately disclosing specific details of the vulnerability.
According to Bons, this approach strikes a better balance between protecting the network from potential exploitation and maintaining transparency. He warned that closed-source binaries themselves carry risks because validators cannot independently inspect code before running it, which could expose them to the risk of malicious changes. For the founders of CyberCapital, open source transparency is a basic security measure that should not be ignored.
Bonds 'final fire was directed at Ripple's token supply and decentralization claims.
Bonds said the XRP software controversy exposed a deeper problem: what he called the "Proof of Authority"(PoA) model, which gives Ripple and the XRP Ledger Foundation disproportionate influence through their recommended verifier list.
He believes that this influence undermines XRP's decentralization claims, bringing the network closer to the centralized end of the blockchain spectrum than investors realize.
Bonds also challenged Ripple's transparency, comparing XRP to Canton and accusing the company of misleading investors about the extent to which it has decentralized the network.
Bunce concluded that he viewed the controversy as part of a broader pattern of deception surrounding XRP. He also criticized Ripple's large token shares and its regular public sales, arguing that closed-source code exacerbated concerns about centralization. He warned that centralized control could pose risks to network participants, reigniting discussions about transparency, accountability and trust in XRP ledgers.
