Ripple Engineer Reveals Why Codius Project Failed Years Ago

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-03-10Last updated on 2026-03-10

Abstract

A former Ripple senior engineer, Steven Zeiler, has reignited discussion by explaining why the Codius decentralized computing project failed. Zeiler argued that despite solid technology and vision, Codius lacked a native token to incentivize early adopters and bootstrap the network, unlike Ethereum which succeeded partly due to the ETH token. His comments drew pushback from XRP Ledger validator Vet, who contended that Codius was intentionally designed to be token-agnostic via the Interledger Protocol, without an ICO or insider advantages. Vet also disputed claims that Codius is dead, citing ongoing development efforts. The debate also touched on Ripple’s former CTO Joel Schwartz’s earlier signals about reviving Codius, though no recent updates have followed his departure from Ripple in 2025.

A former Ripple senior engineer, Steven Zeiler, has reignited a long-forgotten discussion in the XRP community by explaining why the once-promising Codius project quietly faded from view years ago. Zeiler argued that the project lacked a token, and without one, it failed to gain traction. His claim drew sharp debate from validators and caught the attention of many community members.

Why The Codius Project Failed

On March 8, Zeiler, who now serves as a developer evangelist at the Yellow Network, took to X to offer a frank reflection on why Codius, the decentralized computing platform, never gained the traction its creators expected. Zeiler and his team built Codius after leaving Ripple, and looking back, the former senior engineer noted that the project was missing a crucial piece that he believes doomed it from the start.

According to Zeiler, the technology behind Codius was solid, and the vision was clear. Still, the project lacked a native token to bootstrap the network or incentivize early adopters, the people who took the risk to deploy the software. He drew a direct comparison to the Ethereum blockchain, arguing that the “genius” of the ETH token gave people a tangible reason to get involved before the network proved itself.

Zeiler connected this lesson directly to the launch of the Yellow token, framing native assets as essential for rewarding the risk-takers who deploy software, contribute to code, and build early momentum. He noted that continually enabling self-executing applications that do not rely on third-party brokers increases the value of the underlying network. The former Ripple senior executive concluded his post with a pointed observation that every great technology needs powerful incentives to scale.

Community Pushes Back Against Zeiler

Vet, a dUNL validator for the XRP Ledger (XRPL), pushed back against Zeiler’s reasoning, arguing that the decision to create Codius without a native token was entirely intentional from the beginning. He noted that Codius was built to be token-agnostic via the Interledger Protocol, with no Initial Coin Offering (ICO) and no insider advantage, framing the absence of a native asset as a feature rather than a flaw.

A community member challenged Vet by pointing out that Codius is still dead regardless of the original intent, suggesting it may have needed an additional component to survive. The same member noted that as XRP surged from fractions of a cent to over $3, the project’s vision appeared to shift away from a ledger designed for all kinds of value toward one centered on XRP handling everything. In their view, the original vision was the stronger approach.

Vet disputed the characterization, maintaining that Codius is not dead. He referenced an Interledger Foundation podcast from two years ago that suggested the former Coil team had been redirected to work on Codius development. Vet also rejected the framing around XRP, insisting it was always purpose-built as a best-in-class settlement layer and there was never any pivot in its intended role.

Adding another layer to the story, a community member reminded others that Ripple’s former CTO, Joel Schwartz, had signaled back in 2023 that he was actively working to revive the Codius project, noting that recent technological advances had filled the gaps and addressed the challenges the project once faced. However, Schwartz stepped down as CTO at Ripple in September 2025, and no further updates on a potential Codius revival have emerged from his end.

Ripple price recovers from lows | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Related Questions

QAccording to former Ripple engineer Steven Zeiler, what was the primary reason for the Codius project's failure?

AAccording to Steven Zeiler, the primary reason for the Codius project's failure was the lack of a native token to bootstrap the network and incentivize early adopters.

QWhat comparison did Zeiler make to support his argument about the importance of a native token?

AZeiler drew a direct comparison to the Ethereum blockchain, arguing that the 'genius' of the ETH token gave people a tangible reason to get involved before the network proved itself.

QHow did the validator Vet from the XRP Ledger (XRPL) counter Zeiler's explanation for Codius's failure?

AVet argued that the decision to create Codius without a native token was entirely intentional, as it was built to be token-agnostic via the Interledger Protocol, framing the absence of a native asset as a feature rather than a flaw.

QWhat did a community member suggest was a consequence of XRP's massive price surge on the Codius project's vision?

AA community member suggested that as XRP's price surged, the project's vision appeared to shift away from a ledger designed for all kinds of value toward one centered on XRP handling everything.

QWhat update regarding Codius was mentioned in relation to Ripple's former CTO, Joel Schwartz?

AA community member reminded others that Ripple's former CTO, Joel Schwartz, had signaled in 2023 that he was actively working to revive the Codius project, noting that recent technological advances had addressed its past challenges.

Related Reads

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

In a recent Seeking Alpha article, financial professor and analyst Damir Tokic argues that the US stock market may be poised for a significant crash in June 2026. The core thesis centers on a "mega-bubble" in equities, particularly within the technology sector, which has driven the S&P 500 to near-record valuations, with a Shiller P/E ratio exceeding 40—a level comparable to the 2000 dot-com bubble. Tokic identifies two primary catalysts for a potential collapse. First, he points to unsustainable market exuberance fueled by what he terms the "Trump Stimulus"—massive AI capital expenditure by tech giants, which he believes is politically driven and cannot last. Second, and more urgently, he highlights the escalating Iran war as a critical threat. The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a severe global energy supply crunch. Strategic petroleum reserves are projected to hit critically low operational levels by June, potentially causing oil prices to spike above $200 per barrel and triggering a severe, supply-driven inflationary shock. This scenario, Tokic warns, would force the Federal Reserve's hand. Despite currently maintaining a dovish bias, the Fed would likely be compelled to officially pivot to a hawkish stance at its June FOMC meeting to combat soaring inflation and bond yields. He contends that such a shift—or even a failure to act, which would destroy Fed credibility—could be the trigger that punctures the market bubble. The resulting downturn, he concludes, could rival the bear markets of 2000 and 2008, advising investors to prepare for a major correction.

marsbit18m ago

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

marsbit18m ago

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

**Title:** The AI PC Battle: Don't Bet on Sides, Bet on the Tollbooth **Summary:** The AI PC competition is moving beyond simple "x86 vs. Arm" narratives. The core investment thesis should focus on identifying which players can sustain margins, cash flow, and pricing power throughout the upgrade cycle, rather than backing a particular architecture. The opportunity is analyzed in three layers: 1. **The Advanced Foundry Tollbooth:** TSMC is positioned to collect "tolls" regardless of which chip designer wins, due to its dominant ~70% share in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, which is essential for high-end AI PC chips. 2. **Compute & Platform Spillover:** AMD represents an offensive in the x86 CPU+GPU space, while NVIDIA leverages its GPU and CUDA software stack dominance. Both benefit from the demand for increased local AI compute. 3. **Architecture Diffusion & Turnaround Plays:** ARM and Intel offer potential for significant upside (elasticity), but investments here require stricter discipline due to higher execution risks and competitive challenges. The industry is transitioning from concept to shipment validation. While short-term forecasts for AI PC adoption have been revised down slightly due to tariffs and procurement delays, the long-term trend towards AI becoming a standard PC feature remains intact. The key driver for upgrade cycles will be whether compelling enterprise applications (e.g., privacy-sensitive computing, low-latency inference) emerge beyond consumer-focused features like meeting summarization. Investment strategy should prioritize companies with platform-level advantages and recurring revenue streams. TSMC offers high certainty as the foundational tollbooth. AMD presents a strong offensive play within the established ecosystem. ARM and Intel are higher-risk, higher-potential-reward turnaround bets. The report cautions against chasing short-term hype and emphasizes a disciplined, long-term approach focused on buying ecosystem strength and cash-flow certainty after market enthusiasm subsides. **Key Risks:** Underwhelming AI PC applications slowing upgrade cycles; slow improvement in Windows on Arm compatibility; macro/tariff impacts on PC demand; potential advanced node supply-demand mismatches affecting TSMC; high overall AI sector valuations making stocks vulnerable to a risk-off shift in markets.

marsbit32m ago

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

marsbit32m ago

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

Marvell Technology's stock price surged from under $10 in 2016 to a record $290 in June 2026, fueled not by making GPUs, but by dominating AI infrastructure connectivity. This analysis argues the market misvalues MRVL as merely a smaller Broadcom in custom AI chips, overlooking its true, unique position. Marvell's core strength lies in enabling high-speed data flow for AI clusters through three interconnected businesses. First, it holds a commanding ~70% market share in high-speed optical DSPs (essential for data center light modules), a deep-moat business with accelerating growth. Second, its custom AI chip design business serves hyperscalers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google, with a significant revenue pipeline despite lower margins. Third, stable cash flows come from Ethernet switch chips and enterprise storage controllers. Together, they form a full-stack "AI data movement" platform. CEO Matt Murphy's transformative leadership since 2016, involving strategic divestments, key acquisitions (like Inphi for optical DSPs), and securing long-term agreements with major cloud providers, repositioned the company. A pivotal $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA in 2026 underscored Marvell's critical role in the AI ecosystem, particularly through collaborations like NVLink Fusion. While Marvell faces risks—including client concentration (losing the Amazon Trainium3 design), lower-margin business mix, competitive threats, insider selling, and complex supply chains—its fundamentals remain strong. The optical interconnect moat is widening with the acquisition of Celestial AI (photonics fabric), and financial metrics show accelerating revenue growth and operating leverage. With a PEG ratio suggesting undervaluation relative to its growth, the thesis is that the market undervalues Marvell's monopolistic position in AI "plumbing" while overemphasizing its competitive custom chip segment. The story transcends investing, symbolizing how in any complex system—from the internet to AI—the value of "connection" ultimately surpasses that of individual "nodes."

marsbit1h ago

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

marsbit1h ago

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

A discussion on Zhihu about "AI relay stations" shifted the niche developer topic of "cheap tokens" into broader user awareness. Users moved beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of these services to focus on practical concerns: Where do cheap tokens truly come from? Is the model being accessed the real one? Can relay stations see prompts, code, and API keys? For occasional users, are the risks worth it? The core debate centered less on price and more on trust. A primary worry is model authenticity—the risk of "model swapping," where users paying for a premium model might be routed to a cheaper one, creating an information asymmetry. Others argued that cost comparisons matter; while cheaper than official pay-as-you-go APIs, relay stations may not be the lowest-cost option versus subscriptions, domestic models, or free tiers, making user needs assessment crucial. Speculation about token sources ranged from legitimate bulk discounts to gray-area methods like account sharing or exploiting regional pricing. This opacity makes risk assessment difficult for users. Data security emerged as a critical concern, especially for enterprise use. When processing sensitive information like code, contracts, or client data, the inability to verify a relay station's data handling, retention, or access policies poses significant compliance and confidentiality risks. The evolving consensus suggests relay stations can be used cautiously for low-sensitivity, disposable tasks (e.g., summarizing public info, simple translation). However, they should not be the default for sensitive, professional, or production workflows involving proprietary data, Agents, or automated systems. Recommendations include avoiding large prepayments, not relying on a single service, using test prompts to monitor quality, anonymizing data where possible, and keeping official channels as backups. Ultimately, the discussion framed tokens not just as a billing unit but as a measure of real cost encompassing price, model integrity, data security, and service stability. The popularity of relay stations highlights user demand for affordable access, but the debate underscores a key trade-off: the savings from cheap tokens may come at the price of trust, transparency, and control over one's data and AI experience.

marsbit1h ago

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片