Fhiyyerh

Fifteen years into crypto’s evolution, most leaders still speak in careful projections. Brad Garlinghouse didn’t.
During $XRP Community Day on X, he said it plainly: “There will be a trillion-dollar crypto company, I don’t doubt that for a second.” Then he took it a step further. “I think Ripple has the opportunity… to be that company.”
That kind of statement carries weight. #Ripple is currently valued around $40 billion after raising $500 million from investors including Citadel Securities and Fortress Investment Group. To reach a trillion dollars, it would need to grow roughly 25 times from here. In traditional markets, that kind of expansion defines eras. Apple. Nvidia. Alphabet. Companies that became foundational to how the world operates.
In crypto, ambition is common. Execution is rare.
What makes Ripple’s claim worth paying attention to is where the conviction is anchored. Garlinghouse has repeatedly described $XRP as the company’s “north star,” adding,
“Ripple’s reason for existence is driving success around XRP and the XRP ecosystem.”
That statement shifts the frame. XRP is presented as infrastructure, a liquidity layer designed for settlement, cross-border efficiency, and treasury movement.
This is not positioning built on short-term excitement. Over the past year, Ripple has deployed billions into expansion. It acquired prime brokerage Hidden Road for $1.25 billion, treasury management firm GTreasury for $1 billion, and Rail for $200 million, while adding Palisade to strengthen its stack. These moves point to vertical integration. Build the rails. Own more of the flow. Strengthen the financial plumbing before scale arrives.
All of this unfolds against a volatile market backdrop. #xrp has retraced significantly from its $3.56 all-time high and has traded near $1.38. Bitcoin and the broader market have experienced similar drawdowns. Garlinghouse addressed the moment directly, urging the community to zoom out. He reminded listeners that these are massive markets and that the opportunity to “rewire and accelerate” global financial infrastructure is far bigger than any single quarter’s price action.
There is also context that cannot be ignored. After years of legal uncertainty, a U.S. judge ruled that $XRP itself is not a security when sold on exchanges. That partial clarity reduced a regulatory weight that had lingered over Ripple’s strategy. It does not eliminate risk, but it changes the starting point. The conversation begins to shift from survival to adoption.
None of this guarantees a trillion-dollar outcome. Moving from $40 billion to $1 trillion would demand sustained institutional usage, global regulatory coordination, deep liquidity integration, and real-world dependency. That is a steep climb.
But there is a clear narrative emerging. Ripple is not trying to win a meme cycle. It is attempting to embed itself into the underlying infrastructure of finance, with XRP positioned at the center of that design.
The real tension sits here. Does the first trillion-dollar crypto company emerge from consumer speculation and retail momentum, or from institutional rails that quietly power global flows?
One path is louder. The other is slower and harder to build.
lf a trillion-dollar company does emerge from crypto, it will likely become indispensable before it becomes celebrated. The question for anyone watching is simple: are we witnessing the early stages of that kind of buildout, or just another ambitious promise in a market known for bold claims?
That is where the conversation should begin.

Let's be honest, Binance isn’t Dominant Because It’s liked. It’s Dominant Because It’s Used.
For years, Binance has quietly carried the bulk of global crypto trading activity. Across market cycles, it has consistently accounted for roughly 65–80% of total exchange volume, spanning both spot and derivatives. That concentration matters because markets don’t move on participation alone. They move where liquidity is deepest and where capital is willing to take real risk.
Volume on other exchanges has grown, but growth hasn’t changed where price discovery happens. It has mostly expanded access while leaving leadership untouched. In 2023, this dynamic was especially clear. Binance dominated activity while many competing platforms functioned as retail-heavy or region-specific venues. The result was cleaner price action and stronger, more directional trends because liquidity wasn’t fragmented.
As conditions improved in 2024, capital began to spread out, as it often does during expansion phases. Still, Binance never lost control, particularly in derivatives, where leverage and positioning define market direction. Other exchanges saw higher activity, but when volatility returned, liquidity didn’t hesitate. It flowed back to where execution and depth were proven.
The same pattern repeated through 2025 and into 2026. Competing venues experienced periodic volume spikes, but they struggled to sustain momentum. Binance, on the other hand, consistently absorbed liquidity during every major market move. This isn’t a coincidence. When uncertainty rises, capital becomes selective, not experimental.
Some argue that growing activity elsewhere means the market is finally decentralizing. That sounds reasonable until stress enters the system. Most volume outside Binance remains spot-driven and risk-averse. It supports the ecosystem, but it doesn’t set direction. Risk is added on Binance and reduced elsewhere, which is why major volatility events usually start there, while rallies led by smaller venues often fade.
This isn’t about defending Binance as a company. It’s about acknowledging how markets behave. When Binance dominance rises, trends strengthen and volatility expands. In downturns or moments of instability, liquidity doesn’t scatter, it consolidates. And despite the criticism, it continues to consolidate in the same place.
Ignoring that reality doesn’t make the market more decentralized. It just makes the analysis less honest. The real question isn’t whether the market wants alternatives. It’s whether capital trusts them under pressure, and this also brought us back to my main question, If Binance truly stopped being central tomorrow, where would real liquidity go instead?