Ripple CTO rejects centralization claims, compares XRP governance to Bitcoin. Schwartz explains forks reveal blockchain governance flexibility and market dominance. Decentralization still allows harmful changes through majority community consensus. Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, has responded to rising concerns over centralization accusations targeting XRP after online discussions compared its market capitalization with BlackRock. Schwartz argues that the description of XRP as a centralized venture capital project is inaccurate and fails to take into account the way governance works on all public blockchains. He clarified that all the participants of networks such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the XRP Ledger can jointly decide to change the rules should consensus be reached. This, he said, is not solely a property of Ripple architecture but is common to decentralized systems. Also Read: Pudgy Penguins Price Dips After 400% Surge as SEC Delay Sparks Sell-Off Forks Highlight Governance Flexibility Schwartz noted that disputes over blockchain governance often lead to forks, giving communities the chance to adopt different rules. Token holders may benefit as their assets duplicate on both chains, potentially expanding transaction capacity and use cases. This is true of every public layer one blockchain. Any group of participants could change the rules to allow censorship by considering invalid all transactions that violate their censorship rules and it would affect all of those who agreed to the change. — David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) August 27, 2025 However, he warned that in reality, forks do not tend to bring the promised gains. The forces of the market typically tend to drive the value and user activity to a single chain and leave the other feeble, regardless of its initial expectations. Decentralization’s Practical Limits In addressing misconceptions about decentralization, Schwartz emphasized that distributed systems can still approve harmful rule changes. In case of sufficient consent, censorship and other forms of modification might be applied regardless of individual dissent. He also explained that there is no central control over protection against provocative updates. The authority is entirely communal, and the results are the expression of mass agreement instead of a promise of good development. Implications for XRP Schwartz pointed out that governance challenges are not unique to the XRP Ledger but are common across all major blockchain networks. His remarks counter the allegations that Ripple is directly controlling XRP’s decision-making. He pointed out that, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, the XRP Ledger is dependent on the agreement of its participants to determine the future. Consequently, accusations of centralized dominance misrepresent how the system functions. Schwartz’s response underscores that decentralization does not ensure immunity from negative changes. Fork mechanisms provide flexibility, but market forces ultimately determine which chain or governance path prevails. Also Read: SHIB Lead Urges Silence as Burns Explode 185% in Just 24 Hours The post Ripple CTO Defends XRP Against Centralization Claims Amid BlackRock Comparisons appeared first on 36Crypto. Ripple CTO rejects centralization claims, compares XRP governance to Bitcoin. Schwartz explains forks reveal blockchain governance flexibility and market dominance. Decentralization still allows harmful changes through majority community consensus. Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, has responded to rising concerns over centralization accusations targeting XRP after online discussions compared its market capitalization with BlackRock. Schwartz argues that the description of XRP as a centralized venture capital project is inaccurate and fails to take into account the way governance works on all public blockchains. He clarified that all the participants of networks such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the XRP Ledger can jointly decide to change the rules should consensus be reached. This, he said, is not solely a property of Ripple architecture but is common to decentralized systems. Also Read: Pudgy Penguins Price Dips After 400% Surge as SEC Delay Sparks Sell-Off Forks Highlight Governance Flexibility Schwartz noted that disputes over blockchain governance often lead to forks, giving communities the chance to adopt different rules. Token holders may benefit as their assets duplicate on both chains, potentially expanding transaction capacity and use cases. This is true of every public layer one blockchain. Any group of participants could change the rules to allow censorship by considering invalid all transactions that violate their censorship rules and it would affect all of those who agreed to the change. — David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) August 27, 2025 However, he warned that in reality, forks do not tend to bring the promised gains. The forces of the market typically tend to drive the value and user activity to a single chain and leave the other feeble, regardless of its initial expectations. Decentralization’s Practical Limits In addressing misconceptions about decentralization, Schwartz emphasized that distributed systems can still approve harmful rule changes. In case of sufficient consent, censorship and other forms of modification might be applied regardless of individual dissent. He also explained that there is no central control over protection against provocative updates. The authority is entirely communal, and the results are the expression of mass agreement instead of a promise of good development. Implications for XRP Schwartz pointed out that governance challenges are not unique to the XRP Ledger but are common across all major blockchain networks. His remarks counter the allegations that Ripple is directly controlling XRP’s decision-making. He pointed out that, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, the XRP Ledger is dependent on the agreement of its participants to determine the future. Consequently, accusations of centralized dominance misrepresent how the system functions. Schwartz’s response underscores that decentralization does not ensure immunity from negative changes. Fork mechanisms provide flexibility, but market forces ultimately determine which chain or governance path prevails. Also Read: SHIB Lead Urges Silence as Burns Explode 185% in Just 24 Hours The post Ripple CTO Defends XRP Against Centralization Claims Amid BlackRock Comparisons appeared first on 36Crypto.