XRP Ledger Considers Native Staking Amid Expanding Use Cases
RippleX has sparked a debate about adding native staking to the XRP Ledger (XRPL). The network’s uses have expanded beyond payments to include liquidity services and tokenized markets. Recently, the launch of an XRP ETF by Canary highlighted XRP’s growing ecosystem.
XRPL engineer J. Ayo Akinyele discussed the prospects and challenges of native staking. He asked, “What if the XRP Ledger supported native staking? What would that mean for network design and the asset itself?” Unlike many blockchains, XRPL burns transaction fees instead of redistributing them.
Introducing staking would require new reward systems and fair distribution methods. Akinyele noted that incentives affect fairness, decentralization, and governance within the network.
Staking Presents Design and Governance Challenges
Staking aligns validator and token-holder interests while securing networks. It also enables governance participation. XRPL differs because validators earn trust through performance, not staking tokens.
Adding staking would change governance dynamics and network behavior. Reward mechanisms would need sustainable funding, possibly from fees tied to programmability features. Fair and engaging distribution models are crucial, making staking complex to implement.
Akinyele pointed out ongoing experiments with staking via exchanges and DeFi projects like Uphold/Flare, Doppler Finance, and Axelar. He said innovation does not always require changes to XRPL’s core design. This suggests XRP’s utility can grow organically without native staking.
Community Debate on Centralization and Market Dynamics
The discussion extends to XRP’s market role and centralization concerns. Analyst Hantengri criticized XRP for raising $800 million but claimed it remains centralized and lacks real utility.
In response, Panos, co-founder of Anados Finance, said, “The XRP Ledger is independent and community-driven. It existed before Ripple Labs, and it’s not premined.” He highlighted XRPL’s pioneering features like deflationary tokenomics, decentralized exchanges, and tokenization at the Layer 1 level.
Market issues are also part of the debate. Hantengri pointed out discrepancies in a Dashbond swap showing differences between XRP’s dollar value and USDC returns. Panos clarified this results from low liquidity in certain trading pairs, not network flaws. He added, “FYI, there is only one DEX on XRPL built into the L1, due to low USDC liquidity.”
The native staking discussion raises questions about incentives, fairness, and long-term network changes. Akinyele’s remarks reflect an effort to explore new possibilities while respecting XRPL’s original design.
