‘We Designed XRPL So Ripple Could Not Control It’: David Schwartz Breaks Silence

A new debate is taking place in the crypto world after Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, made a series of statements about XRP and control over the XRP Ledger.

And this time, he didn’t dodge the hard questions.

Schwartz took to X to explain how the XRP Ledger prevents double spending — the core problem every blockchain must solve. But what caught the community’s attention was not the technical breakdown. It was his clear statement that Ripple intentionally designed the XRPL so the company could not control it.

“We Did Not Want Control”

Schwartz said the XRPL was carefully built so that Ripple cannot censor transactions, reverse payments, or double spend — even if it wanted to.

He admitted Ripple could face pressure from U.S. courts or regulators. As a U.S.-based company with investors, Ripple must comply with legal orders. But that is exactly why, according to Schwartz, the company did not want control over the network in the first place.

If Ripple had the power to alter transactions or freeze the ledger, it could be forced to use that power.

So instead, the system was structured so that no single entity, including Ripple, can own or control it. His message was clear: the best way to say “no” to outside pressure is to make it technically impossible to say “yes.”

The Bitcoin Comparison

The conversation quickly turned toward Bitcoin. Critics argued that XRP’s Unique Node List system creates coordination problems and relies on what they described as a centralized authority.

Schwartz pushed back. When someone claimed, “Your own BTC node will not double-spend if you disagree, but the network will,” Schwartz agreed — and said this proves most decentralization arguments miss the point.

He compared XRP’s coordination model to Bitcoin’s history. Satoshi chose Bitcoin’s mining algorithm. If the community wanted to change it, that would be a massive coordination challenge. Yet when Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash split, there was no central authority solving the dispute. Each side proposed its own rules and users chose.

Schwartz argues the same would happen on XRPL. If two groups disagree, each would publish its own software and preferred validator list. Node operators would choose which version to run.

In his view, that is no different from how Bitcoin or Ethereum handle forks.

The Decentralization Fight Reignites

Not everyone agreed. One crypto commentator pushed back, arguing that choosing a Unique Node List (UNL),  the validator structure used by XRP,  creates coordination challenges that, in his view, lean toward centralization.

Schwartz responded that many decentralization debates are disconnected from reality. He pointed out that even Bitcoin nodes can reject invalid transactions locally, but consensus still depends on the broader network.

In other words, no blockchain is as simple as critics often claim.

From his perspective, decentralization was not just a philosophical choice. It was a practical, even selfish, decision to protect the network’s credibility.