Ripple’s RLUSD Stablecoin Sparks XRPL vs Ethereum Debate

Ripple’s RLUSD Stablecoin Sparks XRPL vs Ethereum Debate
This article was prepared using automated systems that process publicly available information. It may contain inaccuracies or omissions and is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice.

Introduction

The launch of Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin has ignited a significant debate within the crypto community, revealing a stark imbalance: approximately 77% of its $1.45 billion supply resides on the Ethereum blockchain, not its native XRP Ledger (XRPL). This distribution has fueled concerns among XRP supporters about Ripple’s strategic priorities, even as company officials cite practical exchange infrastructure and rollout speed as the primary drivers, not a shift away from XRPL. The tension between immediate market access and long-term ecosystem loyalty now defines the narrative around RLUSD’s future.

Key Points

  • 77% of RLUSD's $1.45B supply is on Ethereum, raising concerns about XRPL's role in Ripple's strategy.
  • Ripple cites exchange infrastructure as the key factor, with Ethereum's existing tools enabling faster listings.
  • Community perception hinges on whether exchanges deliver promised XRPL support and drive real usage.

The On-Chain Imbalance Fueling Concern

The numbers are stark and have become the central point of contention. According to reports, RLUSD’s total circulating supply sits at roughly $1.45 billion. However, a breakdown shows about $1.11 billion of that amount is held on the Ethereum network, leaving only around $337 million on the XRP Ledger. This translates to a nearly 77% to 23% split in Ethereum’s favor. For a company built on and named after the XRP ecosystem, this lopsided distribution is more than a technical detail; it is a powerful signal that has shaped investor reaction and media headlines.

The concern among long-time XRP supporters is that this imbalance suggests Ripple’s ‘heart might be shifting away from the ledger that gave it a base.’ When a major product like a stablecoin, designed for broad adoption and liquidity, appears to favor a competing blockchain, it naturally raises questions about commitment. The data provides a blunt, quantifiable foundation for these worries, making the community’s anxiety both visible and measurable.

The Practical Reality of Exchange 'Plumbing'

Ripple’s explanation for this initial skew centers on the practical realities of exchange integration, which it describes as a matter of ‘plumbing.’ Luke Judges, Ripple’s Global Partner Success Lead, has been vocal in clarifying the company’s position. He states that the choice of which blockchain supports a new asset first often comes down to the existing systems exchanges already operate. Many trading platforms have built extensive infrastructure for Ethereum-based assets, making listings on that network faster and more straightforward.

Judges emphasizes that Ripple discusses XRPL ‘every time it speaks with an exchange’ and that many platforms have promised to add XRPL support. However, leveraging existing tools on Ethereum allows for quicker market access and liquidity accumulation—critical goals for any new stablecoin launch. This framing positions the Ethereum-heavy start not as a strategic preference but as a short-term, pragmatic step to achieve velocity in a competitive market.

Community Reaction and the Binance Catalyst

The debate reached a fever pitch following a key market move by Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. Binance’s decision to enable RLUSD trading first on Ethereum, without simultaneous XRPL support, was interpreted by many in the XRP community as a tacit endorsement of the perceived imbalance. It served as a high-profile signal that seemed to validate their fears of XRPL being sidelined.

In response, Judges pushed back forcefully on social media, stating that such launches are ‘a function of readiness, not preference.’ He sought to provide ‘complete clarity,’ asserting that the RLUSD team ‘consistently prioritizes the XRPL in every centralised exchange engagement.’ His most direct attempt to calm nerves was a simple, declarative statement: ‘We love XRP and XRPL.’ This message was framed not as an apology or a change in direction, but as a reminder of Ripple’s roots in response to community ‘noise.’ While this reassured some, skeptics remain, noting that commitments on paper must eventually translate to on-chain activity.

The Path Forward: Data Over Declarations

Ripple’s leadership has made its verbal commitment clear. However, Judges himself noted that his comments were not an apology because ‘there was nothing to walk back.’ The company’s stance is presented as firm and unchanged. Yet, the ultimate resolution to this debate will not be found in press statements or social media posts. It will be determined by cold, hard data on the blockchain.

What comes next for XRPL hinges on observable metrics. If trading activity, transfer volumes, and custody flows for RLUSD begin to migrate meaningfully onto XRPL, community perception will shift. Conversely, if XRPL volumes remain a small fraction of the total, concerns will only intensify. The responsibility now also lies with exchanges to follow through on their promises of XRPL integration, which may require technical work on both sides to match the user experience already available on Ethereum. The sentiment behind ‘We love XRP and XRPL’ will carry weight only if it is reflected in the rapid growth of XRPL’s role in the RLUSD ecosystem in the months ahead.

Notifications 0