The debate around XRP and Ripple is heating up again. Foreign media Coinpedia reported that Arthur Hayes and Charles Hoskinson have recently challenged, respectively, the value of tokens and the regulatory route, while XRP supporters, Edo Farina, have argued that such criticism ignores the real progress of XRPL in stabilizing currencies, monetization and institutional hosting.
Hayes questions the lack of substance of the XRP.
Hayes described the XRP last week as “almost nothing” and attributed its community adhesiveness to the wealth effects of early price increases, rather than to the fall of technology or products. According to this statement, some of the projects, even in the absence of a clear delivery, may be sustained by early holders ' profitability.
In her interview, Farina responded that trade judgements were not the same as building financial infrastructure. He indicated that macro traders were more concerned with liquidity and cyclical change, but that that did not mean that it could negate the long-term use of a bottom network.
Proponents claim that XRPL has an institutional layout.
According to Farina, if XRP is really like the critics say “no real content”, the institutionalized layout around XRPL will not continue. Examples mentioned by him included regulated stable currency RLUSD, monetization projects, institutional hosting services and the construction of the XRPL ecology by large financial players.
In his view, the streamlining of XRP to market sentiment alone would not fully explain the lines of business cooperation and compliance that Ripple had promoted over the years. The focus of the dispute is therefore not just on the price performance of the tokens, but rather on whether these layouts can be translated into continuous network use.
Hoskinson pointed the disagreement towards the regulatory path.
Hoskinson's criticism focused more on the policy position of Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse. He questioned Garlinghouse ' s preference for less than perfect legislation in exchange for regulatory advancement, the discussion of which involved United States encryption legislation, Clarity Act.
According to Coinpedia, Hoskinson’s deeper concern is whether XRP has enough natural purchase demand. If the demand for tokens depends mainly on Ripple working with institutions, rather than coming from network activities themselves, its value support will continue to be questioned.
Farina, for its part, attributed such frictions to competitions between public chains for institutional use. He indicated that Cardano, Ripple, Etheum and Solana were all in competition agency resources, while Ripple had chosen a more regulatory priority path. This route is not popular among some encryption practitioners, who prefer to keep encryption systems outside traditional finance.
The divide is in the encryption industry.
Behind this debate is actually the division of the encryption industry over its location. One line of thought is to work with the existing financial system for adoption by banks, regulators and government departments; the other is to focus more on decentrization and substitution of traditional systems.
According to Farina, institutional funding usually values legal certainty more than large-scale allocation of funds in anonymous agreements that lack clear rules. That is why Ripple's route, while less attractive to encrypted fundamentalists, is more accessible to traditional financial institutions.