ChainLink Community Liaison: By owning XRP, You Are Funding Ripple's Business

@media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:320px;height:100px;} } @media only screen and (min-width: 728px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:728px;height:90px;} }

A representative from the Chainlink Community ecosystem has issued a strong critique of XRP and the corporate structure behind Ripple Labs, arguing XRP holders do not benefit from the same economic incentives as the company’s equity investors.

In a detailed post on X, the Chain Links Community Liaison presented a lengthy argument claiming that XRP holders effectively fund Ripple’s corporate growth while receiving limited direct economic value.

The commentary focuses on the distinction between companies that issue both equity and tokens to investors. According to the liaison, this structure creates two separate groups with competing interests. Equity investors hold legal rights to company profits, while token holders often lack enforceable claims to revenue generated by the business.

The post argues that when excess revenue exists, companies tend to prioritize shareholders through stock buybacks or dividends rather than directing value to token holders.

Claims About Ripple’s Business Strategy

The Chainlink representative argued that Ripple has spent more than a decade distributing XRP to retail participants while building its corporate operations. According to the post, revenue generated from XRP sales has been used to finance acquisitions and share buybacks for Ripple Labs shareholders.

The liaison wrote, “In reality, Ripple uses the proceeds of XRP sales to acquire real companies and fund Ripple Labs stock buybacks, to the sole benefit of Ripple Labs shareholders.” The commentary further claims that this structure limits the financial exposure XRP holders have to Ripple’s corporate success.

The tweet also referenced legal filings in which Ripple reportedly stated that the bridge currency use case associated with XRP does not directly influence the asset’s price. The author used this claim to argue that the token’s role within payment systems may not automatically translate into market value growth.

In addition, the liaison criticized the technology behind the XRP Ledger. The post described the network as having limited usage compared with other blockchain platforms, arguing that it holds a small share of activity in sectors such as real-world asset tokenization and stablecoins.

Comparison With Chainlink’s Token Model

The message then shifted to highlighting Chainlink’s structure and its native token LINK. According to the liaison, Chainlink avoids the equity-versus-token conflict because it does not share equity ownership with outside investors.

The post stated that contributors and employees within the ecosystem receive incentives denominated in LINK rather than company shares. The author argued that this design aligns participants’ interests with the network’s performance.

The liaison also emphasized Chainlink’s presence in decentralized finance and its relationships with several major financial institutions. The tweet referenced organizations such as SWIFT, DTCC, Euroclear, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Fidelity Investments, and ANZ Bank as examples of institutions exploring or using Chainlink technology.

According to the liaison, these partnerships demonstrate tangible institutional adoption. The author concluded that LINK provides stronger exposure to the long-term growth of blockchain infrastructure used by financial institutions.

Final Position in the Debate

The tweet closed with a direct comparison between the two ecosystems. The Chainlink representative argued that LINK functions as an “index bet on the institutional adoption of blockchain,” while XRP was described as a token used to fund Ripple’s corporate operations.

The post framed the argument as a documented economic distinction between token models and suggested that investors should evaluate whether owning a token truly provides exposure to the underlying ecosystem’s growth.

Disclaimer*: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.*