The ongoing RippleX staking discussion has ignited a broader debate inside the XRP community about possible changes to the XRP Ledger and its DeFi roadmap.
How could XRPL staking work on a Proof-of-Authority ledger?
The XRP Ledger (XRPL) has been live for more than a decade, yet it still lags rival networks in decentralized finance. Unlike most modern DeFi platforms, it relies on a Proof-of-Authority consensus model rather than Proof-of-Stake, which shapes how validators operate and how fees flow through the system.
Because of this design, the XRPL does not currently support staking, and the protocol burns transaction fees instead of distributing them to validators. Now, engineers at RippleX are openly examining whether a native reward mechanism could fit inside the ledger without undermining its core assumptions.
Ayo Akinyele, Head of Engineering at RippleX, launched the conversation in a detailed thread on X. He linked the timing to the launch of the first XRP spot ETF and expectations that more institutional products will follow as markets adopt tokenized treasury products and money-market funds.
According to Akinyele, this institutional phase sparked internal talks between him and Ripple CTO David Schwartz about whether the XRPL could eventually support XRP native staking and what changes such a shift would require at the protocol level.
1/6 XRP has always been about moving value quickly and efficiently. Over the years, it has gone from powering payments to helping settle tokenized assets and enabling real-time liquidity across different markets.
— J. Ayo Akinyele (@ja_akinyele) November 18, 2025
Why can’t XRPL copy existing staking models?
On the design front, Akinyele emphasized that the ledger cannot simply copy the staking model used by Proof-of-Stake chains. The XRPL burns fees instead of redistributing them, settles payments rapidly at low cost, and gives every validator an equal vote, regardless of token holdings.
Because validator power is not tied to economic incentives, any future staking mechanism would have to serve a completely different purpose. Moreover, it would have to avoid retrofitting PoS-style rewards onto a system that was never built around them.
He added that such a mechanism would need a clearly defined reward source and a fair distribution method. Those parameters would determine how value moves across the network. That said, Akinyele repeatedly underlined that the current discussion is exploratory and meant to outline what might change and what must stay constant on the ledger.
What are Ripple executives saying about staking on XRPL?
The debate quickly drew reactions from Ripple’s leadership. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse publicly praised Akinyele’s transparency and urged the community to think broadly about future capabilities, especially as new XRP-based DeFi initiatives appear on XRPL.
Responding to the thread, David Schwartz highlighted how much the wider blockchain industry has evolved since the XRPL’s launch in 2012. He noted that his views on consensus and governance have changed as well, particularly after revisiting how XRP currently functions in DeFi.
He pointed to both off-chain ecosystems, such as Flare, MoreMarkets, Axelar, and Doppler, and to native on-chain activity as examples of how value can be built around the asset. Moreover, with programmability efforts and XRPL smart contract discussions underway, Schwartz argued that this is an opportune moment to evaluate which additional native DeFi features might make sense.
Which technical concepts has David Schwartz proposed?
However, not everyone is convinced that rewards are the right path. An XRPL dUNL validator known as Vet publicly questioned how staking fits into a network that does not use Proof-of-Stake and what specific problem it is meant to solve.
In response, Schwartz floated two technical possibilities. The first idea would introduce a second, incentivized inner layer: an inner group of roughly 16 validators, selected by the existing outer layer according to stake, with staking and slashing used strictly to advance the ledger.
The second concept would leave current consensus rules unchanged but redirect transaction fees to fund zero-knowledge proofs that attest to correct smart-contract execution. That way, nodes would not need to execute contracts themselves, potentially easing hardware requirements.
Schwartz described both approaches as technically clever experiments. Nevertheless, he warned that they may not translate into practical or healthy changes for the XRPL in the near term, especially given its long-standing emphasis on stability and predictable behavior.
What concerns are emerging around native XRP staking?
Meanwhile, Vet raised broader alignment concerns. He argued that adding reward flows could misalign incentives between ordinary users and validators, which might put upward pressure on fees paid for transactions and smart contracts.
He also asked who exactly would receive the rewards and warned that redistributing fees could open the door to governance disputes, Sybil attacks, and validator clustering as operators search aggressively for lower operating costs. Moreover, such dynamics might undermine decentralization over time.
Akinyele responded point by point. He reiterated that XRPL does not rely on stake-based influence and that validators do not compete for block production, so any reward mechanism cannot play a role in consensus. That said, he admitted that new incentives could change operator behavior in ways that are difficult to predict.
He stressed that the ledger currently avoids tension between users and validators by treating fees purely as anti-spam charges. The RippleX engineer warned that adding validator payouts would push the XRP Ledger toward patterns it explicitly tried to avoid when it adopted a Proof-of-Authority style approach instead of Proof-of-Stake.
Could validator incentives weaken XRPL decentralization?
Expanding on those risks, Akinyele explained that only UNL validators participate in consensus today. Paying either all participants or only the UNL set could create new gameable edge cases, where operators optimize purely for rewards.
He cautioned that economic incentives might even encourage validators to cluster in a few cheaper data centers. Such centralization would conflict with the XRPL’s long-stated goals of resilience and geographic decentralization, which have been central since 2012.
In parallel, a community contributor argued that any staking framework would have a major structural impact because Ripple still holds the largest amount of XRP in existence. Moreover, they warned that this concentration might amplify Ripple’s influence if rewards or voting rights ever became linked.
They suggested that tying staking to governance could make amendment approvals easier for the largest holder, potentially raising questions about long-term neutrality. For that reason, some voices in the ecosystem advocate focusing on features like XRPL AMM liquidity and programmability before taking on reward mechanics.
What might the next phase of XRPL staking debate look like?
Looking ahead, the engineering team has made clear that no concrete proposal exists yet for xrpl staking at the protocol level. The current dialogue is aimed at mapping trade-offs rather than rushing toward implementation, especially as new products like the first XRP spot ETF and tokenized treasury instruments gain traction.
Over time, the outcome of this conversation will likely define how the ledger positions itself against Proof-of-Stake competitors, how it approaches validator incentives, and whether it can expand native DeFi while preserving its core security model.
In summary, RippleX has opened a critical, early-stage debate over xrpl staking that touches consensus design, governance power, validator economics, and the future direction of XRP-based DeFi.