A heated Twitter debate unfolded recently, shedding light on the topic of decentralization within the crypto community. The discussion began with a tweet from Fredo Ayala, CFO of TREASURYxrpl, who questioned the decentralization in Ripple’s XRPL code base.
Ayala contended that the dominance of Ripple’s contributions in the code base was a social construct, as independent developers lacked the influence to drive significant changes. He called for a technical explanation to address the perception that XRPL was the “red-headed stepchild of crypto.”
In response, David “JoelKatz” Schwartz, Ripple’s CTO, stepped into the fray. Schwartz emphasized that progress, maintenance, and change in any decentralized system relied on individuals’ willingness to invest resources.
If participants believed their objectives would be met without their intervention, they would naturally refrain from taking action. Drawing an analogy, Schwartz likened centralized tomato production to efficient convenience, arguing that it should be seen as a positive rather than a negative aspect of decentralization.
Schwartz further emphasized that Ripple’s decision not to review a pull request (PR) should not be interpreted as a barrier to merging. Instead, it should be considered a valid requirement for a reasonable time to review the code.
He stated that change carries risks and costs, so the bias should be against change. He argued that a decentralized system could still thrive despite the difficulty of making modifications, using Bitcoin as an example.
Ripple’s Foundation & The dUNL: Concerns Of Centralization
Another community member joined the discussion, raising concerns about Ripple’s Foundation and its potential impact on decentralization.
They likened the Foundation’s control over the XRPL validator list (dUNL) to a centralized tomato warehouse, suggesting that alternative participants may be discouraged from contributing to the infrastructure.
Schwartz responded, asserting that the Foundation could not dictate actions that weren’t in participants’ interests. He emphasized the freedom of choice within the XRPL ecosystem, stating that anyone could publish their software, create their own UNL, or run their own validators.
He encouraged dissatisfied individuals to write their own code and develop their infrastructure, emphasizing that decentralization allowed participants to determine their own paths.
The debate highlighted contrasting viewpoints on decentralization within the XRPL community. Schwartz’s argument centered around the idea that decentralized systems thrive when individuals are empowered to make choices based on their own interests.
As the crypto landscape continues to evolve, debates like these shed light on the nuances of decentralization and its role in shaping the future of cryptocurrencies.
Related Reading | TRON (TRX) Takes Off: 24 Hours Trading Volume Soars 255% – Here’s Why