XRP’s Decentralization Debate Heats Up: Pro-Ripple Lawyer Drops Bombshell Insights

The crypto world's favorite legal drama is back—and this time, it's all about XRP's decentralization credentials.

Ripple's defenders break their silence with explosive claims that could reshape the regulatory battlefield.

Here's why Wall Street still doesn't get it (but keeps pretending to).

TLDR

• Attorney John Deaton addressed claims that Ripple’s XRP holdings make the network centralized.
• He stated that decentralization should be measured by how the network operates and not by token distribution.
• Over 75,000 XRP holders from more than 140 countries supported Deaton’s amicus motion in the SEC case.
• The XRP Ledger uses a consensus model where validators approve transactions without incentives or ties to Ripple.
• Ripple cannot implement changes to the ledger without approval from independent global validators.

Attorney John Deaton has dismissed claims that Ripple’s large XRP holdings make the network centralized. Instead, he pointed to global participation on the XRP Ledger as a more accurate measure. The comments arrive as XRP continues to face scrutiny in the broader regulatory and public discourse.

Deaton, representing thousands of XRP holders in the Ripple vs. SEC case, emphasized community use over token distribution. With over 75,000 holders from 140 countries backing his legal efforts, Deaton pointed to wide support. He argued that decentralization involves technical governance, not merely token concentration.

Politicians learn sound bites and rarely fully understand the tech. A lot of people conflate token centralization/concentration with network decentralization. For example, some argue XRP is not decentralized, because Ripple owns 40% of the outstanding XRP.

But 75K XRP holders,… https://t.co/MueEzmx5xr

— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) June 26, 2025

Ripple holds around 40% of XRP, but does not control the XRP Ledger directly. Critics often equate Ripple’s holdings with control over the network’s operations. However, Deaton challenged that view, stating such assumptions overlook how the ledger functions technically.

XRP Governance Model Resists Central Power

The XRP Ledger uses a consensus protocol rather than a proof-of-work model like Bitcoin. Transactions confirm through validator agreement, and most validators have no corporate LINK to Ripple. This structure limits Ripple’s influence over ledger decisions, regardless of token ownership.

Ripple cannot force changes onto the network without majority validator support. Even though Ripple can propose updates, others must agree before they apply. This makes the governance model resistant to control by any single entity.

David Schwartz, Ripple’s CTO, has explained that validators receive no compensation. Their independence is essential to maintaining decentralized governance across the ledger. That operational design contrasts with platforms where miner incentives influence control structures.

Deaton has highlighted this model as evidence that Ripple lacks unilateral power. He continues to argue that decentralization must be measured through actual network control. Ripple’s suggestions do not guarantee execution without consensus from the validator community.

Community Size Adds Weight to the Argument

The XRP community now spans over 140 countries, reinforcing claims of broad and independent participation. This global distribution supports the idea of decentralization beyond Ripple’s corporate base. The community-driven nature plays a crucial role in governance and advocacy.

Deaton’s legal filings reflected wide international engagement, as tens of thousands supported his amicus brief. These holders are not directly tied to Ripple and act in their own interest. Their backing showcases the diversity within the XRP ecosystem.

The debate continues, but current facts suggest that control does not rest solely with Ripple. Community, governance structure, and validator independence present a wider perspective. These factors shape a more complete view of decentralization than token holdings alone.