Analyzing XRP is the perfect example for this debate, because it is the project that most divides the community: for some it is a betrayal of decentralization and for others it is the only crypto with real utility in the financial world.
Here I give you both sides of the coin for you to decide:
1. The argument of "Real Utility" (Why it will survive)
Unlike 99% of Altcoins, XRP has a clear and functioning use case: cross-border payments.
Real problem: The current SWIFT system takes days and is expensive. XRP allows for payments to be settled in seconds with fees of less than a cent.
Adoption: Ripple (the company behind it) already works with hundreds of financial institutions. It is not a promise "of the future"; it is already being used to move real money today.
Legal clarity: After its battle with the SEC, it is one of the few cryptos in the U.S. with a clear legal status, which attracts large funds.
2. The "Smoke/Institutional" Argument (The Critique)
Here is where it fits with the text you showed me:
Centralization: Many criticize that Ripple controls a large part of the tokens in escrow. If the goal of Crypto was to take power away from companies, XRP is the opposite: it is a tool for companies and banks.
Price vs. Adoption: A major debate is whether the success of Ripple's technology really requires the price of XRP to rise. Banks can use the network without needing to "hodl" the currency for years, which undermines the "HODL to the moon" theory.
My conclusion:
XRP is not "smoke", because it solves a financial infrastructure problem. However, it is the ultimate example of "Institutional Adoption": it is not a currency to take down the system, but to make it more efficient from within.
If you're looking for the "revolution against banks," XRP will disappoint you. If you're looking for an asset that will survive because institutions need it, it is one of the strongest candidates.
Do you see it as a safe investment due to its utility, or are you bothered that it is such a "banking" project?
XRP1.3599-1.44%