Chainlink vs XRP: XRPL Accused of Being a "Ghost Chain," Token Model Dispute Escalates

Gate News, March 17 — Recently, the long-standing dispute between Chainlink and XRP has escalated again, with both communities fiercely debating whether XRPL possesses core value. The focus centers on technical positioning and value capture mechanisms.

The incident began when Chainlink community contact Zach Rynes publicly called the XRP Ledger a “outdated ghost chain” and questioned its “bridge currency” narrative. He pointed out that XRPL’s share in real-world assets (RWA) is less than 1%, and its stablecoin issuance is nearly negligible.

This statement quickly prompted a counterattack from the XRP camp. Lawyer Bill Morgan criticized Rynes for bias, while Ripple CTO David Schwartz responded from the perspective of token distribution logic, emphasizing that XRP sales are a long-term, transparent market-based allocation mechanism. Rynes countered that this model favors the interests of equity holders.

The controversy further extended into tokenomics. Ripple recently announced a $750 million stock buyback at a valuation of about $50 billion, while Chainlink continues to increase its LINK holdings through protocol revenue. These two approaches represent “equity value recovery” and “token value return,” respectively, becoming the core of community debate.

Market data shows XRP’s market cap is approximately $91 billion, significantly higher than LINK’s roughly $7 billion. However, LINK’s price has retreated more from its all-time high. Supporters on both sides have long debated “institutional adoption benefits,” a dispute dating back to 2019.

Notably, despite escalating community conflicts, the two are not directly competing in business. Chainlink mainly provides oracle and cross-chain data services, while XRPL focuses on payment networks and value transfer infrastructure. In fact, Ripple’s stablecoin RLUSD already uses Chainlink’s data support.

This recent turmoil highlights the ongoing “narrative competition” and “value capture mechanisms” within the crypto industry. Although there is potential for project-level cooperation, the antagonism at the community level continues to amplify market perception differences.