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 Can Ripple unilaterally destroy the huge amount of XRP in its custody?
Questions have once again emerged in the cryptocurrency community: Can Ripple unilaterally destroy the large number of XRPs it has hosted? The controversy focuses on Ripple's control of XRP's circulation supply and the network's decentralized governance model.
Ripple's authority to host XRPs
Web3 investor and blockchain commentator Jack Clever responded to these concerns in a recent social media post, making it clear that Ripple has no right to independently destroy XRPs in its custody. Ripple is a San Francisco-based financial technology company known for using XRP and related blockchain infrastructure to develop payment solutions.
Cliver explained that the XRP ledger implements decentralized governance, while Ripple itself directly controls only 3 of the 35 verification nodes in the Network's Unique Node List (UNL). Any agreement changes-such as the destruction of the escrow XRP-require an absolute majority vote. According to Claver, the threshold is 80%, which means that at least 28 verification nodes not controlled by Ripple are required to reach a consensus.
"Ripple runs 3 of 35 trusted verification nodes, and any changes require approximately 80% consensus. They can lock XRP in custody, but to destroy the supply, they need to vote in favor of the other 28 independent verification nodes. This is the actual manifestation of decentralization."
The governance mechanism of the XRP ledger ensures that no single participant (including Ripple) can change network rules or destroy tokens without the consent of broad verification nodes.
Destroying Custody: Processes and Barriers
According to Claver, any attempt to destroy XRP from custody requires a formal network amendment that must be supported by the vast majority of trusted verification nodes. He emphasized Ripple's limited influence in this structure, reiterating that unilateral direct action is not possible.
Cliver also quoted previous remarks by Ripple's chief technology officer David Schwartz. Schwartz has repeatedly emphasized that under the rules of the XRP ledger, such measures require overwhelming online support. Ripple can place XRPs in custody, lock, or release according to monthly plans and business operations, but only through large-scale network consensus can the complete destruction of these assets be approved.
Mini Dictionary: Unique Node List (UNL)-In an XRP ledger, UNL is a set of trusted verification nodes used to reach consensus on the ledger's status and rules. Amendments and key changes to the protocol require high consensus from UNL verification nodes before they can be implemented.
Community Views and Custody Liquidation
Clever's interpretation triggered extensive discussions in the XRP community. Some question whether Ripple has an incentive to remove a major source of funding from its balance sheet. User XRP_BIBLE believes that the monthly sale of XRP from custody is still an important source of revenue for Ripple, so large-scale destruction is unlikely.
"Ripple cashes some of its XRP through monthly sales, so there is little incentive to destroy custody assets-which represents its primary financing mechanism."
Other users, such as William Lolli. DigitalAsset Evangelist, reiterated the view that Ripple's structured release has always been at the heart of its business model. They question why companies should deviate from a system they consider successful.
Another community participant, Italian Gatorade, highlighted the difference between the destruction of regular transaction fees on the XRP ledger and the large-scale deliberate destruction of tokens due to image or price influences. The user supported the network's current practice of destroying a very small amount of XRP per transaction, while opposing the proposal to destroy custody like some memes.
The overall response of the community once again expressed confidence in decentralized ledger governance, emphasizing that any change in the total supply of XRP requires significant consensus from multiple parties, not just Ripple's approval.
