Debate reflects broader industry divide over decentralization.
The long-running debate over what constitutes “true” decentralization in crypto flared up again this week.
Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz publicly rejected claims that Ripple exerts effective control over the XRP Ledger.
The recent clash, which unfolded on X between Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons and Schwartz, saw the former exec push back against assertions that the network operates as a centralized blockchain.
It underscores growing tensions within the industry as critics renew attacks on so-called “permissioned” or institutionally aligned networks.
Former Ripple CTO Rejects XRP Ledger ‘Control’ Claim
The dispute began when Bons argued that Ripple’s use of a “Unique Node List” (UNL), a list of trusted validators that nodes rely on to reach consensus, effectively makes the XRP Ledger permissioned.
“Any divergence from this centrally published list would cause a fork, effectively giving the Ripple Foundation & company absolute power & control over the chain,” Bons wrote.
Schwartz, known online as “JoelKatz,” dismissed the characterization as “objectively nonsensical.”
“This is as objectively nonsensical as claiming someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion Bitcoins,” Schwartz wrote.
Bons clarified that he was not alleging Ripple could inflate XRP’s supply or seize user funds.
However, he argued that control over validator coordination could theoretically enable censorship or double-spending — drawing a comparison to a 51% attack on Bitcoin.
Schwartz rejected that analogy, contending that XRP Ledger’s consensus model differs fundamentally from proof-of-work systems like Bitcoin.
“You count the number of validators that agree with your node and your node will not agree to double spend or censor unless you, for some reason, want it to,” Schwartz said.
He acknowledged that validators could conspire to halt the network from the perspective of honest nodes.
Schwartz noted that even in such a scenario, attackers could not successfully double-spend.
The remedy, he said, would be for users to adopt a new Unique Node List — comparing it to Bitcoin users changing the mining algorithm in response to a dishonest majority.
Attack on XRP Ledger and ‘Centralized’ Blockchains
Bons’ criticism extended beyond Ripple’s XRP Ledger.
In a lengthy thread, he argued that any blockchain not secured by proof-of-work (PoW) or proof-of-stake (PoS) is, by definition, reliant on authority.
This effectively makes it a form of proof-of-authority (PoA).
He grouped Ripple, Stellar, Hedera, Algorand and Canton into what he described as “centralized ‘blockchains.”
The crypto mogul argued that validator sets in several of these networks are permissioned or influenced by foundation-published lists.
Bons argued that institutional players are uncomfortable with fully permissionless systems and therefore gravitate toward networks with more structured governance.
“The big winners are the crypto natives,” he wrote, asserting that credible neutrality can only be achieved on fully permissionless networks.
Schwartz’s rebuttal, however, claimed that XRP Ledger’s consensus design allows nodes to choose their own trusted validators.
No single entity could rewrite history or inflate supply, he added.
“We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it,” Schwartz wrote.
“We designed it so that we could not own or control it because that was the only way to ensure that nobody could own or control it,” he added.
Community Divided Over What Decentralization Means
The exchange quickly drew responses from across the crypto spectrum.
One user argued that Bitcoin has lost meaningful decentralization, claiming that “big money” now controls the majority of mining power.
Another countered that the more relevant question is not validator distribution, but whether users can exit without permission.
“True decentralization is measured by how easy it is to fork away from bad actors, not by counting nodes,” the user wrote.
The renewed criticism comes as the broader crypto industry continues to debate the importance of decentralization, particularly as regulators and institutions increasingly engage with blockchain technology.
Networks with identifiable foundations or corporate partnerships have often faced skepticism from crypto purists who argue that decentralization must be enforced by economic incentives rather than a corporate team.
At the same time, enterprise adoption efforts frequently prioritize features that critics say blur the line between traditional finance systems, such as predictability and compliance.
Bons and Schwartz’s latest clash highlights that the debate over decentralization remains unresolved.
Read more on CCN – Capital & Celeb News
