Ripple vet David Schwartz, who frequently interacts with members of the XRP community on X, has defended a widely debated 2017 social media thread regarding the price of the major altcoin.
This came after an X user accused Schwartz of spending his time "fooling the XRP community" and asking if the Ripple vet planned on deleting his old statements.
'XRP can't be dirt cheap'
Back in November 2017, Schwartz tweeted that XRP cannot be "dirt cheap" if it were to handle massive global transaction volumes.
HOT Stories Ripple Vet Defends Controversial 2017 XRP Price Take XRP's Price Recovery Pattern Finally Finished, Ethereum (ETH) $3,000 Breakout Attempt Invalidated, Minor Shiba Inu (SHIB) Uptrend Continues: Crypto Market Review
"It can't be dirt cheap. That doesn't make any sense," Schwartz wrote in 2017. "If XRP costs $1, they'd need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they'd need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million."
Schwartz continues to stand by this nine-year-old economic assessment. However, he has admitted he has considered deleting the original tweets due to rampant price speculation within the community.
You Might Also Like
Fri, 04/10/2026 - 11:53 Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz Explains Why No One Alive Likely Has Satoshi's KeysByGamza Khanzadaev
According to the Ripple vet, the post is widely misinterpreted as a price prediction, but he insists that removing it and the context around it "would do more harm than good."
His explanation of liquidity and market depth was never meant to be taken as a guarantee of future value.
"I think it's very simple," Schwartz stated. "But somehow people seem to think it's a price prediction or evidence that XRP was designed to have a high price (whatever that even means)."
Deleting the Arbitrum posts
Earlier in the week, Schwartz deleted a series of posts regarding the Arbitrum Security Council’s controversial decision to freeze over 30,000 ETH tied to the KelpDAO exploit.
Initially, Schwartz had defended the network intervention. In fact, he actually compared Arbitrum's actions to the famous 2010 "value overflow incident."
However, he then walked back this statement and deleted the posts after "confusing Arbitrum with a different type of L2."
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
