Why Ripple Made XRPL Impossible to Control Itself

Ripple says XRPL was built so even Ripple cannot control, censor, or alter transactions due to its consensus design.

Ripple designed the XRP Ledger so that it cannot be controlled by any single entity, including Ripple itself.

A senior figure associated with the project explained that this structure was intentional and rooted in legal, regulatory, and practical concerns.

The comments clarify why Ripple made XRPL impossible to control – even by Ripple.

XRPL Designed Without Central Control

The XRP Ledger was structured to prevent ownership or direct control by Ripple.

According to the statement, this decision was deliberate and not due to technical limits.

The team believed they were capable of making strong decisions but chose to limit their authority.

The speaker stated, “We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it.”

The goal was to ensure that no party would have unilateral power over the network. This included the ability to censor transactions or reverse payments.

One last point that I don’t make often enough:

We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it. It’s not because we weren’t 100% confident we were the very smartest and very best people who could always make the very best decisions. We were confident…

— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 24, 2026

The consensus model was built to distribute validation across independent participants. As a result, changes require broad agreement.

This structure reduces the risk of centralized intervention and maintains operational independence.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

The comments referenced regulatory realities faced by companies operating in the United States.

Ripple, as a US-based company, must comply with court orders. It cannot refuse legally binding directives from US courts.

The speaker noted that while US courts generally act for sound reasons, outcomes can vary.

A court could prioritize international legal cooperation over network concerns. This uncertainty influenced the design approach of XRPL.

By removing control from Ripple, the network avoids exposure to direct corporate action.

If Ripple does not have the technical ability to alter the ledger, it cannot be compelled to do so. This separation was described as a protective measure for the ecosystem.

Related Reading:  Binance Expands RLUSD Support With XRPL Integration

Trust Model and Consensus Objectives

The design philosophy also focused on reducing required trust in Ripple. The speaker said that trust is beneficial but dependence is risky.

Users should not need to rely on Ripple to use the XRP Ledger. The statement read, “People having to trust me or Ripple or anyone else to use XRPL is all downside for us.”

The intention was to create a system where trust is optional rather than mandatory. This approach aligns with broader blockchain principles.

The speaker also addressed potential misuse of control. If Ripple could censor or double spend, trust in XRPL would collapse.

Therefore, the network was structured so that such actions are not possible. The consensus model limits power to protect long-term network stability and credibility.