Cyber Capital Founder: Ripple is Fully Centralized, Please Remain Vigilant
Original Author: Justin Bons, Founder of Cyber Capital
Original Translator: Luffy, Foresight News
Ripple (XRP) is a centralized and permissioned network, contrary to statements made by its executives. XRP misleads investors by falsely claiming its decentralized nature when, in fact, the network is fully controlled by the foundation.
The XRP consensus is based on a Unique Node List (UNL), where trusted nodes are determined by a centralized entity (including the foundation). The XRP consensus is not based on PoS or PoW but on PoA (Proof of Authority), yet they claim to be more decentralized than Bitcoin and Ethereum...
All of this is supported by Ripple's own documentation, and it's hard to find any researchers outside of XRP who would classify this design as "decentralized"; however, they are deceiving the public.
However, users can modify their UNL and choose whom to trust. The language used here is very subtle. A truly decentralized cryptocurrency is "trustless" because it requires no "trust" at all, and choosing whom to trust is entirely different from being trustless!
XRP is not trustless at all, and what's worse is: if your UNL does not overlap sufficiently with the rest of the network, you are at risk. According to Ripple's documentation: a 90% UNL overlap is required to prevent forks.
This means that in practice, you need direct permission from the XRP foundation to participate in the consensus, which is almost centralization in terms of blockchain design... Let's take a deeper look at these UNLs below.
We have established that the UNL is the trusted third party chosen by the XRP foundation, and as we delve deeper into these UNLs, this point is further confirmed: for a long time, there was only one UNL, the dUNL managed by the XRP foundation.
However, this list is not static but dynamic. The XRP foundation can, in a completely centralized manner, change the list of validators without any notice, kicking out anyone who violates authority.
Over time, now there are two UNLs, namely the dUNL and XRPLF, both directly funded by the XRP foundation. This adds another layer of de facto control over the network; let me explain:
Blockchain allows mutually untrusting parties to coordinate, all thanks to the underlying incentive mechanism (PoS or PoW). However, XRP lacks block rewards and incentives; it is purely based on trust. So, how do different Unique Node Lists (UNLs) coordinate with each other?
XRP's premise is based on the idea that different parties can spontaneously organize around a new UNL without the need for the aforementioned incentive mechanism. This notion is clearly fallacious because this is precisely the problem blockchain aims to solve: a new UNL cannot achieve coordination.
If a new UNL cannot coordinate, it means the foundation holds de facto control. Control over validators equals control over the network, resembling a permissioned blockchain.
In all other blockchains, you cannot choose validators as they are trustless and permissionless. This is why validators can be anonymous—secured by cryptoeconomic game theory, not trust. This is the fundamental difference of XRP.
XRP is fundamentally not a cryptocurrency. Since it is neither PoS nor PoW, it is a PoA. What else could it be? A consensus algorithm requires a validation mechanism, with trust as the system’s foundation, thus: XRP is a PoA!

A PoA system always has a central authority to appoint validators. So, what about the fact that there are currently two "official" UNLs? This fact contradicts my assertion that different UNLs cannot coordinate. This is where things truly start to get crazy:
Upon careful inspection, I discovered that all UNLs are, in fact, identical, using the same set of validators, further proving that the foundation effectively controls the XRP network!

This screenshot is from 2 years ago, but I confirm the situation remains the same today, demonstrating that new UNLs cannot coordinate. Thus, the foundation's list becomes the de facto list since all UNLs must comply, or there is a risk of fork.
This also allows the foundation to conduct audits if compelled, given their high level of control. This operates drastically differently from cryptocurrencies and explains why halting the network only requires 20% of validators...
Running trusted validators also has no incentives. Unlike PoW or PoS, where the cost of attack reflects the block reward to miners/stakers, the decentralized standard heavily relies on block rewards. On XRP, this decentralization measure stands at zero.
I have been researching XRP since the early days, and I vividly remember when people recognized the trade-off of decentralization. As the community and leadership's stance became more extreme, this situation gradually changed. I say this not to disparage investors but to empower them.
Help break the XRP echo chamber and stop being someone else's liquidity out. XRP's pre-mining rate of 99.8% makes it one of the most unfairly distributed cryptocurrencies in history. As no new XRP was created, all newly circulating XRP was purchased from the founders.
I have always been intrigued by the early discussions about Ripple's decentralization, pretending that XRP is permissionless is not the right answer. The real solution is to use PoS to replace the UNL list, transforming XRP into a more traditionally decentralized blockchain.
They could also openly admit that facts are facts, and I will not dispute that. However, using lies to attract ignorant retail investors is wrong. This is where we as an industry need to draw the line and self-regulate!
XRP may currently be able to bribe or deceive the SEC, but they cannot deceive us, the cryptocurrency natives. Regardless of how complex and in-depth the rebuttals may be, it will not change some simple facts: XRP is now fully permissioned and centralized.
If you truly care about XRP, take it seriously. Because within this critical post exists a path that can help XRP succeed: owning up to its centralization or transitioning to decentralization. The truth sets us free, either walk away from XRP or exert pressure for change; nothing is irredeemable.
You may also like

The New Yorker in-depth investigation interpretation: Why do OpenAI insiders consider Altman untrustworthy?

Two Divided Worlds: Insights from the New York Digital Asset Summit, the Most Institutionalized Blockchain Conference

Top Ten Reveals of CZ's New Book: Advance Knowledge of "94", the Inside Story of Huobi's Change of Ownership Made Public for the First Time

Ceasefire Overnight Erases War Premium, Three Fault Lines Only One Sealed | Rewire News Morning Brief

Robinhood Secures 'Trump Account': Enabling Millions of Newborns to Access the Stock Market

Afraid to Open the Pandora's Box? Anthropic's Most Powerful Model Ever Dares Not Be Disclosed

US-Iran Ceasefire: A Temporary Pause or Prelude to Renewed Conflict? Market Outlook for Oil, Gold, and Bitcoin
April 8, 2026 – A temporary ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran has provided some immediate relief to the global markets, but the fundamental question remains: Will the cessation of hostilities hold, or is this merely a brief reprieve before a resumption of conflict? As the situation unfolds, market observers are closely monitoring how key assets like oil, gold, and Bitcoin will react in the coming weeks. This article explores whether the ceasefire is a sign of lasting peace, assesses the short-term market implications, and delves into the evolving role of Bitcoin in the global financial landscape.

WEEX Market Update: U.S.-Iran Ceasefire Sparks Bitcoin Price Surge
April 8, 2026 – In a significant shift in global geopolitics, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a temporary two-week ceasefire with Iran, resulting in a notable market reaction across various asset classes. This development comes after discussions between Trump, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, and Army Chief General Asim Munir. The announcement is already reverberating through markets, particularly in oil, gold, and cryptocurrencies.

Morning Report | South Korean financial institutions pilot stablecoin payments for foreign users; Morgan Stanley Bitcoin ETF is about to be listed; CME plans to launch AVAX and SUI futures contracts

EigenCloud Founder: AI and Cryptocurrency are Creating the Next Trillion-Dollar Asset Class

From Panic to Pumps: How Bitcoin Traders Are Playing the 2-Week US-Iran Ceasefire
For most people, the two-week US-Iran ceasefire is about geopolitics, oil prices, and whether World War III gets postponed. But for crypto traders glued to their screens late Sunday night, it was something else entirely: the clearest risk-on signal in months.

US-Iran Ceasefire Triggers Oil Plunge, Bitcoin Surge, and Gold Rally
Despite the sharp rally, caution is warranted. The $70,000–$72,000 zone has historically been strong resistance. The ceasefire is only temporary (two weeks), and any breakdown in negotiations could trigger a sell-off toward the $62,000–$65,000 support zone. For now, Bitcoin needs to close decisively above $72,500 to confirm a true breakout; failure to do so within 48–72 hours could lead to a swift retracement.

OpenAI has no "New Deal," a blueprint for AI that refuses to pay.

Wall Street Flash Mob Run? Mega-Cap Stock Plunge, Goldman's Great Escape, Illustrated Guide to Private Credit Crisis

OpenAI Feud: Power, Trust, and the Uncontrollable Boundaries of AGI

「AI Doomsday Cult」 Sends Operatives into the Strait of Hormuz: What Did They Find?

Everyone is waiting for the war to end, but is the oil price signaling a prolonged conflict?

