 
 
David Schwartz, one of the original architects of the XRP Ledger (XRPL), has pushed back against claims that the XRPL operates as a centralized system controlled by Ripple. His comments came after a public exchange with Justin Bons, sparking renewed debate over decentralization in blockchain networks.
XRPL Slammed for Centralization by Crypto Executive Justin Bons
The debate ignited when Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, urged crypto users to avoid all blockchains he views as centralized, explicitly calling out the Ripple-linked XRP Ledger.
Other networks Bons criticized include Stellar, Canton, Algorand, and Hedera. He argued that the industry needs to draw a firm line against networks that incorporate permissioned elements.
“We must reject all centralized ‘blockchains’”! Bons posited. “Centralization is not the future of finance; requiring permission from an authority is not decentralized!”
Specifically, Bons targeted the XRP Ledger’s Unique Node List (UNL) mechanism, asserting that it gives Ripple “absolute power and control” over network consensus.
 
According to the research, validators essentially require permission to join the network, and straying from the recommended list could result in forks.
The post quickly drew pushback from XRP supporters. One user accused Bons of a “scary twisting of reality” regarding the network’s architecture. Bons responded sharply, arguing that Ripple’s aggressive marketing has misled both the public and regulators.
“XRP convincing masses of ignorant retail investors that they are more decentralized than BTC & ETH is the scary reality here,” Bons opined. “Even fooling the SEC & saving their own asses in the process. They cannot fool real crypto researchers; we know the difference!”
David Schwartz Snaps Back
Ripple’s longtime CTO, now emeritus, David Schwartz, was quick to defend XRPL against Bon’s centralization allegations, describing it as “objectively nonsensical” and fundamentally inaccurate.
He contended that the claim is comparable to suggesting that a miner with majority hash power on Bitcoin could simply create billions of BTC out of thin air.
“This is as objectively nonsensical as claiming someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion bitcoins,” the exec wrote.
In practice, however, even the most dominant miners cannot override Bitcoin’s protocol rules without consensus from the wider network. Through this analogy, Schwartz emphasized that influence should not be mistaken for control.
Schwartz also dismissed the notion that XRP Ledger could be used to censor transactions or execute double-spends, drawing a parallel to how a 51% attack would work on Bitcoin.
“You count the number of validators that agree with your node, and your node will not agree to double-spend or censor unless you, for some reason, want it to,” he explained.
Schwartz noted that if any validator acts maliciously, honest nodes simply disregard its votes. Even in the event of a coordinated attack, he emphasized that the worst-case scenario would be a temporary network pause — not the approval of fraudulent transactions.
“We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it,” he added.