A new theory surrounding XRP’s long-standing price stagnation is making waves in the crypto community. Jesse, a researcher at Apex Crypto, argues that the token’s value may be facing deliberate constraints, pointing to a subtle but intriguing change in a 2021 Citibank document.
The paper originally referenced a “Regulated Internet of Value” before the terminology was later updated to “Regulated Liability Network.” Jesse believes the shift was intentional, arguing that the original phrase closely aligned with Ripple’s vision and made the connection to the company too obvious.
His claims have reignited a debate that has followed XRP for years: why has the token struggled to achieve sustained price growth despite Ripple’s expanding institutional footprint and continued development of payment infrastructure?
The Institutional Infrastructure Argument
At the center of Jesse’s thesis is the idea that Citibank’s original language mirrored Ripple’s Internet of Value concept and the objectives of the Interledger Protocol. In his view, the later rebranding did not alter the underlying framework but simply removed terminology that could be directly associated with Ripple.
The argument gains further attention because Tony McLaughlin, one of the architects behind the Regulated Liability Network, has described the initiative as a shared-ledger model for tokenized bank deposits. The framework bears notable similarities to the type of interconnected financial ecosystem Ripple has spent years advocating.
Meanwhile, discussions around next-generation payment rails are accelerating. The Bank for International Settlements has explored unified ledger systems capable of connecting central banks, commercial banks, and tokenized assets on a single infrastructure. Such models are often viewed as potential successors to parts of today’s correspondent banking network and could eventually challenge the dominance of SWIFT in cross-border settlements.
According to Jesse, if XRP—or technology derived from Ripple’s ecosystem—ultimately becomes embedded within these systems, institutional stakeholders would have little incentive to support dramatic price volatility. A stable settlement asset, he argues, would be more attractive than one prone to speculative surges.
A Theory Without Direct Evidence
Despite the growing discussion, the theory remains speculative. Ripple executives have consistently rejected suggestions of coordinated price control. CEO Brad Garlinghouse has previously stated that XRP’s enormous daily trading volume makes it too liquid for any single participant to manipulate effectively. CTO David Schwartz has also argued that XRP’s market performance generally follows trends seen across the broader large-cap altcoin sector.
Regulatory findings have likewise failed to support claims of suppression. Before filing its enforcement action against Ripple in 2020, the SEC conducted an investigation lasting roughly 18 months and did not allege price manipulation by the company.
As a result, Jesse’s case relies largely on circumstantial connections, institutional developments, and interpretations of public documents rather than concrete evidence such as trading records, internal communications, or regulatory disclosures.
Even so, the discussion continues to gain attention. For a growing number of researchers and market observers, the gap between Ripple’s institutional ambitions and XRP’s relatively modest long-term performance remains a question worth exploring.
About The Author
More Stories
Citi Moves Into Real-World Assets With Private Company Share Tokenization Platform
Hackers Exploit Old Solana Pools in $1.34M Raydium LP Token Incident
XRP Vision Going Mainstream? Garlinghouse Highlights Wall Street Convergence