Forbes Says XRP Has No Purpose, Calls XRPL a Ghost Chain

A recent Forbes article has taken a swipe at Ripple and the XRP Ledger, calling the XRPL and 19 other blockchain networks functional ghost chains.

The XRP Ledger has retained relevance in the blockchain ecosystem over a decade after its introduction, with wallets hosted on the network recording a steady uptick to over 5.1 million at press time, demonstrating sustained interest among blockchain enthusiasts.

However, Forbes claims the XRPL is nothing more than a zombie chain, a tag that has triggered sharp criticisms from industry pundits. In a report published yesterday, Forbes aimed to spotlight 20 blockchains it believes are “zombie chains” with little utility.

Forbes Criticizes XRP Ledger

While the report presented a table of these networks, its focus was primarily on XRP, creating the impression that the entire commentary was targeted at the XRPL. The article noted that the XRPL has failed to command significant global money flows

As a result, Forbes believes the blockchain network is not close to replacing SWIFT in the cross-border sector. However, despite SWIFT commanding a much greater volume, the XRPL has continued to impress in the remittance scene, with multiple firms leveraging Ripples ODL (now Ripple Payment) product for cross-border settlements.

Bitso, a leading crypto exchange, confirmed last year that it processed $3.3 billion worth of remittance between Mexico and the U.S. in 2022 alone, mainly through XRP and stablecoins. In addition, Ripples Q1 2023 report revealed that ODL thrived, commanding nearly $3 billion in Q4 2022 despite the banking crisis at the time.

Besides the XRPLs inability to disrupt SWIFT, the Forbes article claims XRP is largely “useless” despite having a valuation of over $36 billion. Interestingly, the metric with which they tagged XRP useless was accumulated transaction fees, which stood at $583,000 in 2023.

However, the article failed to highlight that this low figure is a result of the XRP Ledgers extremely low fees when compared to legacy payment systems. The XRPL only charges an average fee of $0.0002 per transaction, while SWIFT charges anything from $10 to $100 for a wire transfer.

In addition, the XRPL does not run on transaction fees. Rather, it mandates these fees only as a measure to eliminate spam transactions on the network. The fact that network participants only paid $583,000 in fees last year despite carrying out over 1 million transactions a day is actually a laudable feat for the XRPL.

A Disputed List of “Zombie Chains”

Forbes boldly labeled Ripple a “crypto zombie,” claiming that despite XRPs high daily transaction volume, it has little utility. The article claimed there are better alternatives to SWIFT when it comes to cross-border payments but failed to mention that XRP commands faster transactions, much lower fees, and a greater success rate than these alternatives.

The article also criticized Ripple‘s latest feats, which include the recent acquisition of Standard Custody and Trust and CBDC pilot programs with countries such as Palau. Forbes’ criticism hinges on the fact that these developments have come up after over a decade of Ripples existence.

They went on to list 20 blockchains they believe are “good for nothing” with little utility. The list includes XRP, Cardano, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Internet Computer, Ethereum Classic, Stellar, Stocks, Kaspa, Theta, Fantom, Monero, Arweave, Algorand, Flow, MultiversX, BitcoinSV, Mina, Tezos, and EOS.

Interestingly, the article only recognizes Bitcoin and Ethereum as networks with sufficient utility, which is a strange conclusion. According to Forbes, these “zombie blockchains” are either fork of Bitcoin and Ethereum or competitors.

The report has garnered criticism from multiple crypto industry pundits. Panos Mekras, co-founder of Anodos Finance, called the article a “piece of nonsense,” noting that its main author, Steven Ehrlich, did not carry out sufficient research.

In addition, another XRP community figure pointed out that the XRPLs cumulative fees for last year are actually a positive feature for the network, stressing that these fees are not regarded as revenue but are burned.