{"id":26751,"date":"2026-04-27T06:18:04","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:18:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/ripples-david-schwartz-rejects-claims-he-misled-xrp-holders\/"},"modified":"2026-04-27T06:18:13","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:18:13","slug":"ripples-david-schwartz-rejects-claims-he-misled-xrp-holders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/ripples-david-schwartz-rejects-claims-he-misled-xrp-holders\/","title":{"rendered":"Ripple\u2019s David Schwartz rejects claims he misled XRP holders"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><\/p>\n<div class=\"post-detail__content blocks\">\n<p><strong>Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has defended an old XRP price discussion that has returned to attention on X.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<div id=\"cn-block-summary-block_649a26f577997b663b76b4827c80c83e\" class=\"cn-block-summary\">\n<div class=\"cn-block-summary__nav tabs\">\n        <span class=\"tabs__item is-selected\">Summary<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n<div class=\"cn-block-summary__content\">\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>David Schwartz defended his 2017 XRP comments after fresh criticism from the crypto community.<\/li>\n<li>Schwartz said the old XRP post explained liquidity needs, not a future price target.<\/li>\n<li>His deleted Arbitrum posts added more attention to his recent explanations on X.<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- .cn-block-summary --><\/p>\n<p>The exchange followed criticism from a user who accused him of misleading the XRP community. The debate <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/JoelKatz\/status\/2048537047066136591\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">centered<\/a> on a 2017 thread in which Schwartz discussed XRP liquidity and price levels. He said the comments were not meant to serve as an XRP price prediction.<\/p>\n<p>In the 2017 post, Schwartz argued that XRP could not be \u201cdirt cheap\u201d if it handled large global transaction volumes. He used a simple example to explain how liquidity needs could relate to transaction size.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p>\n<p>Schwartz wrote at the time, \u201cIt can\u2019t be dirt cheap. That doesn\u2019t make any sense.\u201d He added that if XRP traded at $1, a user would need one million XRP to move $1 million. If XRP traded at $1 million, one XRP would move the same value.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Ripple veteran rejects price prediction claims<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Schwartz said many users have taken the post as a promise of future XRP value. He pushed back on that reading and said the thread explained market mechanics, not a guaranteed price target.<\/p>\n<p>He said, \u201cI think it\u2019s very simple.\u201d He added that some people still treat the post as proof that XRP was designed to have a high price. Schwartz said deleting the old thread could remove useful context and create more confusion.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Arbitrum posts also face scrutiny<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>The discussion came after Schwartz deleted separate posts about Arbitrum\u2019s decision to freeze more than 30,000 ETH linked to the KelpDAO exploit. He had first defended the intervention and compared it to Bitcoin\u2019s 2010 value overflow incident.<\/p>\n<p>Schwartz later said he deleted the posts because he had confused Arbitrum with another type of layer 2 network. The move added more attention to his recent comments as XRP holders continued to debate his older statements.<\/p>\n<p>The latest exchange shows how past XRP comments still shape community discussion years later. Schwartz continues to maintain that his 2017 remarks focused on liquidity, transaction capacity and market depth rather than an XRP price forecast.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has defended an old XRP price discussion that has returned to attention on X.\u00a0 Summary David Schwartz defended his 2017 XRP comments after fresh criticism&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cryptocurrency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26751"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26752,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26751\/revisions\/26752"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}