Ripple CTO Says New XRPL Programmability Proposal Would Complicate Issues For Users

• David Schwartz has expressed his preference for burning XRP tokens.
• Schwartz thinks burning XRP tokens could increase the difficulty level of buying the crypto.
• The Ripple CTO considers new XRPL programmability proposal complicated.

Ripple’s CTO, David Schwartz, has expressed his preference for burning XRP tokens over other suggested methods of improving the blockchain token’s economy. In a recent discussion on X, Schwartz noted that burning XRP tokens could increase the difficulty level of buying the crypto, causing the price to go up and leading to lowered transaction fees within the crypto’s network.

Schwartz presented his argument while responding to Scott Chamberlain, a former lawyer and crypto entrepreneur, who proposed a new way to bring programmability to the XRPL. Chamberlain noted that his proposal has two parts, comprising “Hooks” and a new token exclusively to fund Hook fees.

Furthermore, Chamberlain highlighted that his proposal is selfishly structured to allow Evernode, a permissionless DePIN for smart contracts existing on the mainnet. The crypto entrepreneur pleaded with the XRP community to choose Hooks, describing it as proven, powerful, and low-cost.

Chamberlain also described his proposed new token, Codii, analyzing how users can lock up XRP to mint Codii. He summarized his proposal by noting how combining Hooks and Codii can bring proven programmability and life to XRP and ensure consistent fees for payment transactions.

Schwartz considers Chamberlain’s proposal complicated, noting it does not offer any advantage over just burning XRP for all transaction fees. Despite Chamberlain’s continued argument over the potential of the new proposal, the Ripple CTO insisted that transaction fees on the payment network remained the same, regardless of what token it is paid in.

Otherwise, Schwartz thinks introducing a new token would impose a new burden on XRP holders, requiring them to jump through hoops to avoid dilution losses. According to him, the proposal is not self-funding. Hence, users would suffer dilution while funding their Hooks. Furthermore, Schartz thinks managing two different tokens while submitting transactions could be burdensome and may complicate fee escalation.