Schwartz defends XRP ledgers, refutes claims that 93% of transactions are robots

Ripple's CTO defends '93% of Internet activity is driven by robots' controversy

Ripple's CTO is embroiled in a new online debate about the XRP ledger, refuting a viral claim that networks and spam accounts account for 93% of Internet activity. David Schwartz does not deny this figure, but raises a more pointed question: Even if the XRP ledger is cheap and full of low-value traffic, why does that make it worse?

This confrontation took place on the X platform on September 10, 2026. Schwartz responded to critics@ScamDetective5 in a public post.

Details on the accusation of "93% XRP ledger robot transactions"

This accusation is very straightforward. Critics claim that a very small number of account clusters do almost all the work on the XRP ledger, labeling these accounts as bots and spammers, and calling XRPL a "ghost chain."

The specific data comes from encrypted media CoinGape, which quoted a report from online analytics company Bitquery. The report claims that in August 2026, only 793 accounts generated 93.2% of XRP ledger transactions.

• Reported trading concentration: Unverified measurements
• Reported share of XRPL trading volume attributable to 793 accounts: 93.2%

CoinGape cited Bitquery data as saying that in August 2026, 793 accounts generated 93.2% of XRP ledger transactions. However, the underlying dataset and classification methods were not found, so the measurement remains unconfirmed. Account concentration alone does not prove that these activities are caused by robots or spam.

The same report also claimed that after filtering out machine-driven activity, only 0.8% of ledger traffic represented true human-scale payments, a claim purportedly from Bitquery but unconfirmed.

There is a key caveat here: the original Bitquery dataset, query statements, and methodology cannot be verified. Classification thresholds, denominator and rules for marking accounts as robots have not been verified.

This distinction is crucial. The transaction count does not equal the number of heads. Account concentration, automation and spam are three different things. The mere 93% figure alone cannot tell you which situation is.

How Schwartz defends the XRP ledger

As Ripple's long-time chief technology officer, Schwartz's user name on the X platform is @JoelKatz. He did not attempt to refute the statistic, but challenged the framework of the view.

He admitted that XRPL is indeed very cheap and that people use it for both useful and useless things. He then reversed his argument and asked whether making transactions more expensive and squeezing out low-value activities would really make the network better.

His complete reply is worth reading in his own words:

It's weird to say that. Yes, it's cheap. Yes, you can use it to do useful things, or you can do useless things. If it becomes more expensive and fewer people do low-value things on it, will that make it better?

Notice what he is arguing and what he is not arguing. He did not claim that the 93% figure was false, nor did he confirm that it was true. He opposes the assumption that cheap, high-volume, low-value use is a flaw, not a feature.

This is Schwartz's personal position, not an official statement from Ripple. He has previously spoken out positively for XRPL and recently supported the new XRPL meme coin under similar circumstances to defend open, low-cost network use.

What truth does robot transaction counting reveal about XRP ledger activities?

To determine whether the accusation of "robot" is true, a definition of "robot" is first needed and a reproducible classification method is needed. Since neither is available here, the percentage remains an assertion rather than a given fact.

In addition, there is a structural reason why transaction counts exaggerate the number of independent payments on XRPL. Since its launch in 2012, the ledger has always had a built-in decentralized exchange (DEX), where transactions require sending a transaction, according to official XRPL documents.

These DEX quotes behave like limit orders. A quote can be partially closed, the rest left in the ledger, and may later be consumed by other quotes or cross-currency payments, or it can be cancelled directly.

Therefore, a single trade intention may result in multiple ledger transactions. This is exactly the mechanism that the CoinGape report ignores, and why high transaction counts on a small number of accounts may reflect active market market-making rather than false usage. Recent upgrades to XRPL, including the launch of rights-controlled DEX, have further deepened this on-chain trading activity.

The report also claimed that almost half of active accounts became inactive after a transaction, allegedly from unconfirmed reports, although the definition and observation window of "active account" were not disclosed.

As background information, at the time of research, XRP was trading at close to US$1.35 and fell slightly on the day. The price has no established link to the dispute and should not be interpreted as a market response to the dispute.

Honest conclusion: The arguments have been made and Schwartz has answered, but the core statistics have not yet been independently reproduced. So, the real question is not whether XRPL is busy, but who has the right to define the value of that busyness.

Disclaimer : This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. There are significant risks in the cryptocurrency and digital asset markets. Be sure to conduct your own research before making a decision.