XRP Ledger developers are proposing four code changes bundled into a network upgrade amendment called fixCleanup3_5_0 to close loopholes that allow restricted tokens to reach accounts without issuer approval. The proposal remains subject to validator approval.
The XRPL Foundation describes the work as routine protocol hardening with no reported user impact and no evidence of outside exploitation.
How the loopholes work
On the XRP Ledger, holding tokens other than XRP occurs through trust lines, which establish standing relationships between an account and a token issuer. Issuers can restrict their tokens to only approved accounts.
Developers identified gaps in three areas: trust-line management, automated market maker (AMM) pool behavior, and transaction checks that did not consistently apply the same rules across the network. These gaps allowed certain restricted tokens to move to unapproved accounts.
What the amendment would change
Once active, unapproved restricted tokens would lose most functionality. Holders could primarily return them to the issuer. Full functionality would require the associated trust line to receive approval.
Issuers would retain the ability to approve accounts retroactively, allowing them to address legitimate edge cases rather than stranding balances. The changes do not affect XRP, the network's native asset.
Activation requirements
The amendment requires support from more than 80% of trusted validators, maintained for two consecutive weeks. The code has not yet been merged into the main XRPL software, so the process must proceed through code review, release integration, and then validator voting.
The proposal surfaced in late October 2026, with updates posted the week of October 27, 2026. No activation date has been set.
Context and affected parties
An earlier amendment in August 2025 addressed a related loophole tied to NFT trading. This new package extends similar scrutiny to trust lines, AMMs, and transaction checks.
Token issuers relying on restrictions are the most direct stakeholders. These projects typically use restrictions for compliance purposes. Closing the identified paths would make issuer controls function as intended.
For restricted token holders, approval would carry greater weight. Existing unapproved balances trace back to issuers or previously approved accounts, suggesting the affected account pool remains narrow.
