Ripple CTO personally debunks rumors! Responds to three major questions from Custodia CEO, detailing the truth behind the ICO controversy.

David Schwartz, the Chief Technology Officer of Ripple, recently personally responded to Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long's public doubts about the origin, development direction, and integrity of the Ripple project (including the XRP Ledger (XRPL), the XRP token, and the new stablecoin RLUSD). Schwartz invited Long to engage in a fact-based dialogue via social media, while senior XRPL validator @Vet_X0 published a lengthy rebuttal addressing Long's core arguments regarding "XRP originating from an ICO," "XRPL being centralized," and "RLUSD deviating from the XRP Ledger." This article outlines the key points of contention between the two parties and reveals critical facts.

Question and Response: XRP CTO Publicly Invites Dialogue to Clarify Facts Ripple's Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz recently publicly responded to the criticism from Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long. Long openly questioned Ripple's credibility in a podcast, claiming it has deviated from its original mission to replace traditional banks (especially the SWIFT network). She raised two core concerns: the origin of 1) XRP has "all the characteristics of an ICO"; and it is puzzling that Ripple chose to issue the new stablecoin RLUSD on Ethereum rather than entirely through the XRP ledger. Schwartz quickly clarified the misinformation via social media (especially on X) and publicly invited Long for a dialogue: "Whenever you want to discuss the facts about Ripple, our stablecoin RLUSD, the XRP ledger, and its native token XRP, I am available." He also directed readers to the detailed refutation post by XRPL validator @Vet_X0.

Controversy Point One: Is the Origin of XRP Related to ICO? Validators Detail the Genesis History In response to Long's accusation of comparing XRP's origin to ICO projects, XRPL senior validator Vet (@Vet_X0) strongly refuted it, stating that Long seems to lack a basic understanding of the subject yet rashly jumps to conclusions. Vet clarified the key facts: XRP did not raise funds through an ICO. When the XRP Ledger (XRPL) was launched in 2012, all 100 billion XRP Tokens were pre-allocated to the genesis account. At that time, these tokens had no monetary value and were not subject to any public sale or fundraising. This process is fundamentally different from Ethereum (ETH), which conducted a public ICO in 2014 (accepting Bitcoin investments and distributing ETH to early supporters). Vet emphasized that Long's accusations represent a serious misunderstanding of XRP's genesis history.

Point of Controversy Two: Is XRPL Centralized? Data Verification of the Validator Network Long claimed twice on the podcast that Ripple "essentially controls the XRP ledger" (i.e., it is centralized), which was strongly rebutted by Vet. He pointed out that such statements, if not due to ignorance, are a result of insufficient technical understanding. Vet clarified that the XRP ledger is an open-source and decentralized public blockchain, and anyone can run a validator node or fork its code. Currently, the XRPL network has over 1000 nodes and more than 100 active validators, which are operated and controlled by independent individuals, universities, businesses, and financial institutions, and are not owned or controlled by Ripple. The Ripple company itself also cannot unilaterally update network rules and must rely on community consensus.

Controversy Focus Three: Is RLUSD on Ethereum = Betrayal? A Pragmatic Interpretation of Multi-Chain Strategy In response to Long's doubts about Ripple issuing the RLUSD stablecoin on Ethereum being "distrust in its own infrastructure" and "deviating from the original intention of making XRPL the backbone of global finance," Vet provided an official interpretation of the strategy: RLUSD will be issued simultaneously on both Ethereum and the XRP ledger, which is Ripple's well-considered multi-chain strategy. This move does not mean abandoning XRPL, but rather aims to enhance liquidity and reach a broader user base that exists within other blockchain ecosystems. Vet emphasized that Ripple Payments' core business and RLUSD will continue to operate natively on the XRP ledger, with the introduction of Ethereum serving merely as a supplement rather than a replacement.

Vet Supports XRPL: Technological Pioneer and Continuous Evolution Vet emphasized the technical leadership of the XRP ledger in his response: XRPL is the first blockchain to natively integrate decentralized exchange (DEX) at the protocol layer and is a pioneer of native tokenization (users can issue custom assets without relying on smart contracts). He also pointed out that the development of XRPL has never stagnated, and its unique amendment system continuously introduces new features based on community consensus. The entire ecosystem is vibrant, with a growing developer community, strong liquidity, and an increasing number of real financial connections, while the launch of RLUSD will further reinforce these advantages.

Conclusion: The truth of technology and strategic considerations come to light, community confidence remains to be observed The controversy sparked by Caitlin Long has been clarified through the public response from XRP's CTO and technical analysis by core community members: there is a fundamental difference between the genesis model of XRP and an ICO; the decentralized nature of the XRPL network is supported by a large network of independent validators; the multi-chain deployment of RLUSD is aimed at expanding the ecosystem rather than a strategic shift. However, the doubts also reflect concerns among some market participants about the consistency of Ripple's long-term vision and execution. While clarifying the technical truth helps maintain community understanding, whether Ripple can continue to earn broader trust through technological innovation and clear strategic communication remains to be seen and tested by time and the market. The native capabilities of the XRP ledger and the synergy with RLUSD will be important points of observation in the future.