Ripple Exec Warns Compromise Is Coming – What This Means For XRP

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-12Last updated on 2026-02-12

Abstract

Ripple's Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, indicated that a compromise may be near in ongoing discussions between banks, the U.S. Senate, and crypto leaders regarding stablecoin regulations. A recent White House meeting, though not final, was described as productive. Banks presented principles opposing yield-bearing stablecoins to protect traditional banking, but reportedly made a key compromise by allowing possible exemptions. This could permit transaction-based rewards under strict conditions, impacting Ripple’s operations and its stablecoin RLUSD. The outcome, expected by March 2026, may define permissible crypto activities and significantly influence XRP’s regulatory environment and market role.

Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer (CLO), Stuart Alderoty, has signaled that a compromise may emerge soon from ongoing discussions among banks, the US Senate, and crypto leaders over stablecoin rewards. The comments followed a smaller White House meeting focused on stablecoin regulations, which highlighted which activities should be allowed under upcoming rules. Depending on the outcome, this could directly affect Ripple’s operations and the broader outlook for XRP.

Compromise Puts Ripple In Regulatory Focus

Popular Journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on Wednesday, February 11, that both banking and crypto participants had described the Stablecoin yield meeting in the White House as productive, even though no final agreement was reached. The meeting explored deal specifics in more detail than previous sessions, with particular attention on how stablecoin rewards, highlighted in the Clarity Act, could be structured under future rules.

During the meeting, Alderoty stated that “compromise is in the air,” signaling potential movement toward shared ground between banks and crypto representatives. For XRP, this matters because Ripple’s role in cross-border payments and the services of its stablecoin RLUSD depend heavily on how regulators define permissible reward-based and transaction-based activities.

Notably, Terrett stated that banks and trade groups arrived at the White House meeting with a written set of prohibition principles that outlined what they would not accept regarding stablecoin rewards. These principles were designed to protect traditional banking structures while limiting the extent to which digital assets could compete with deposit products.

Under the principles, banks stated that payment stablecoins should not offer yield or rewards to prevent deposit flight and preserve lending in local communities. They also called for strong enforcement measures to close loopholes, restrictions on marketing that could present stablecoins as insured or risk-free, and a regulatory review after two years to assess potential risks.

According to Terrett, one source said banks made a key concession by accepting language that included possible exemptions, something that had previously been off the table. This change opens the possibility that transaction-based rewards could be permitted under tightly defined conditions, a development that may influence how Ripple structures its stablecoin services, with potential effects on XRP as well.

What Negotiations Could Mean For XRP And Stablecoins

A major point of debate during the meeting was the definition of permissible activities, which would determine what crypto firms like Ripple are allowed to do when offering stablecoin rewards. Crypto representatives pushed for broader definitions to provide more clarity for stablecoins, while banks argued for narrower boundaries to reduce risks to the financial system.

The White House urged both parties to reach an agreement by March 1, 2026, with further discussions expected in the coming days. Although it’s unclear whether another meeting of the same scale will take place this month, Ripple’s participation puts RLUSD and XRP directly in the spotlight. The outcome of these negotiations could shape how the crypto company and the broader stablecoin market offer rewards and likely influence how they operate under future regulatory frameworks.

XRP trading at $1.37 on the 1D chart | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Related Questions

QWhat did Ripple's Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, signal about the ongoing stablecoin discussions?

AStuart Alderoty signaled that 'compromise is in the air,' indicating potential movement toward shared ground between banks and crypto representatives regarding stablecoin regulations.

QWhat was the key concession made by banks during the White House meeting on stablecoins?

ABanks made a key concession by accepting language that included possible exemptions for stablecoin rewards, which had previously been off the table, opening the possibility for transaction-based rewards under tightly defined conditions.

QHow could the outcome of these negotiations affect Ripple and its stablecoin RLUSD?

AThe outcome could directly influence how Ripple structures its stablecoin services, particularly regarding permissible activities for offering rewards, which may also have potential effects on XRP.

QWhat was the major point of debate between crypto representatives and banks during the meeting?

AThe major point of debate was the definition of permissible activities, with crypto representatives pushing for broader definitions to provide clarity for stablecoins, while banks argued for narrower boundaries to reduce risks to the financial system.

QBy when did the White House urge both parties to reach an agreement on stablecoin regulations?

AThe White House urged both parties to reach an agreement by March 1, 2026, with further discussions expected in the coming days.

Related Reads

After Tokenizing Assets, How to Exit?

After tokenization, a key unresolved issue is providing holders with a reliable exit mechanism, as underlying asset settlement (taking days to months) lags far behind on-chain token settlement. Three primary models for instant liquidity have emerged, differing in their capital structure and efficiency: 1. **Balance Sheet Model (e.g., Grove Basin):** A single, well-capitalized entity (like Sky) provides immediate liquidity from its own reserves. This offers simplicity and deep initial liquidity but is constrained by that single balance sheet's capacity and risk appetite, limiting scalability. 2. **Dedicated Vault Model (e.g., Upshift Clear):** Independent liquidity providers (LPs) fund separate vaults for each supported asset. This decentralizes capital sources but isolates liquidity and capital, which becomes inefficient as the number of tokenized assets grows. 3. **Shared Liquidity Layer Model (Symbiotic Liquid Lane):** Independent capital providers fund shared vaults that can support multiple tokenized assets simultaneously. Capital remains productive between redemptions (e.g., earning yield in DeFi markets). Exits are settled via a competitive RFQ market where market makers bid. The article argues that the shared layer model offers superior capital efficiency and scalability. It transforms exit liquidity from an asset-specific patch into shared market infrastructure, allowing liquidity capacity to grow with overall market participation rather than being fragmented per asset. This is particularly valuable for longer-duration assets like private credit, where reliable T+0 exits can significantly enhance their utility in DeFi.

链捕手3m ago

After Tokenizing Assets, How to Exit?

链捕手3m ago

Anthropic's Triple Moment: Code Leak, Government Confrontation, and Weaponization

This article analyzes Anthropic's recent conflicts and strategic moves following the U.S. government's emergency halt of its new Fable model, citing national security concerns over potential "jailbreaks." The author argues this incident reveals deeper tensions between AI labs, governments, and the software industry. While critics view Anthropic's safety-focused rhetoric as marketing fear, the author suggests it serves as a commercial moat masking the company's core economic imperative: moving closer to end-users and their valuable data to avoid being commoditized. The piece outlines a coming clash between frontier AI labs like Anthropic and established software companies. Labs need real-world usage data for model improvement via reinforcement learning, creating a cycle where better products attract more users and more data. This threatens software firms who, as Microsoft's Satya Nadella warns, risk having their value captured by a few dominant models. Anthropic's controversial policy changes—initially secretly degrading Fable's performance for LLM development and expanding data retention—are framed as assertions of control, justified by its safety narrative. The company's foundational belief that it alone is sufficiently concerned about superintelligent AI dangers legitimizes its actions, from resisting government demands to shaping usage policies. The author concludes that this alignment of mission, talent, and business strategy is powerful but concerning, as it concentrates immense potential power in the hands of those convinced of their own righteous understanding.

marsbit13m ago

Anthropic's Triple Moment: Code Leak, Government Confrontation, and Weaponization

marsbit13m ago

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

On June 15, 2026, Li Auto unveiled details of its self-developed chip, Mahe M100, for its new L9 Livis model. CTO Xie Yan stated the goal was not just a faster chip, but a fundamentally different one, targeting the chip architecture itself. While competitors like NIO, Xpeng, and Huawei highlight TOPS (computing power) figures for their self-developed chips, Li Auto’s Mahe M100 focuses on redesigning the underlying architecture. It employs a "dynamic data flow architecture" to address memory bandwidth bottlenecks in large model inference, claiming up to 3x the effective computing power of Nvidia's Thor U for its specific workloads and a 40% reduction in latency. The chip's design was peer-reviewed and accepted at ISCA 2026. However, this performance is highly optimized for Li Auto's own VLA2.1 algorithm, meaning it may not generalize as well to other tasks. Li Auto aims to achieve full-stack in-house development with Mahe M100, covering chip, compiler, OS, AI algorithms, and domain controller—a level of vertical integration few competitors match. Beyond the chip, CEO Li Xiang introduced a new strategic narrative: the "embodied intelligent vehicle," defined as an integration of an EV, a professional driver, an AI computer, and a life assistant. This shifts competition from features like large screens to systemic AI capabilities. A key commitment was that Li Auto's Mahe VLA autonomous driving model will match Tesla's FSD V14 by Q4 2026, with specific OTA milestones set for July, September, and December. Financially, Li Auto faces pressure with declining revenue and vehicle gross margins since Q4 2025, while maintaining high R&D investment (approx. ¥12B in 2026, 50% AI-related). Its 2026 sales target is 550,000 vehicles, up from 406,000 in 2025. The new L9 Livis garnered over 10,000 pre-orders in two weeks. The effectiveness of these strategic moves—new products, OTAs, and the novel chip architecture—will begin to show in Q3 2026 financial results, with the year-end FSD V14 benchmark being the ultimate test.

marsbit1h ago

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

marsbit1h ago

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

The Year of AI Applications: Blindly Saying "Yes" While Ignoring Risks? A Software Development Log Goes Fully Open Source. AI-generated code harbors risks hidden within seemingly correct programs, potentially leading to data leaks or asset loss. The open-source project "Narwhal AI Code Risks," from Peking University's Narwhal-Lab, compiles real-world cases, early warning signs, and typical risk pathways. Its goal is to help developers identify potential hazards early and avoid repeating past mistakes. In 2026, code is generated faster than ever but deployed with less scrutiny. The danger often lies not in glaring errors, but in code that appears normal—syntactically correct, passing all checks—yet introduces subtle but critical flaws like non-existent dependencies, excessive permissions, or exposed databases. A stark example is the Moonwell cbETH oracle incident. A configuration file error, where a cryptocurrency price was set to ~$1.12 instead of ~$2,200, slipped through 28 checks and a pull request signed by both AI (Claude, Copilot) and human developers. This "semantic deviation" resulted in a loss of $1.78 million. The risk is that AI can produce functionally valid code that is semantically wrong for the business context. As AI moves beyond simple code completion to modifying configurations, installing dependencies, and operating via autonomous agents, it traverses longer, less traceable paths within software engineering, blurring traditional boundaries and oversight points. The Narwhal AI Code Risks project structures information into three layers: `/cases` for documented real-world incidents, `/inferred` for early warning signals, and `/scenarios` for clear, generalized risk patterns not yet tied to specific events. This aims to create a lasting, public record to prevent collective amnesia about past AI-coding pitfalls. Risks are categorized into seven areas: Software Supply Chain (e.g., recommending fake packages), Code-Level Vulnerabilities (e.g., reintroducing path traversal bugs), Cloud & Infrastructure Misconfiguration (e.g., overly permissive settings), Agent Risks (from autonomous tool execution), Vertical Domain Risks (e.g., in finance, healthcare), Intellectual Property & Compliance issues, and Human Factors (like over-reliance on AI output). The project's core value is transforming isolated incidents into reusable knowledge—a foundational resource for developers to spot similar issues, for security researchers to build upon, for toolmakers to create detection rules, and for the community to contribute new findings. As AI integration accelerates, this open-source "logbook" serves as a crucial navigational aid, charting past errors to help future projects steer clear of the same traps.

marsbit1h ago

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

What is XRP 2.0

XRP 2.0: A New Frontier in the Cryptocurrency Landscape Introduction to XRP 2.0 In the ever-evolving realm of cryptocurrency, new projects continuously emerge, vying for attention and adoption. One such promising initiative is XRP 2.0, a novel cryptocurrency project designed to leverage advanced blockchain technology and robust encryption methodologies. While the name draws parallels with Ripple’s XRP, it’s crucial to note that XRP 2.0 operates independently, focusing on enhancing transaction security, privacy, and scalability. As the digital financial landscape increasingly embraces decentralized solutions, XRP 2.0 aims to contribute meaningfully to web3 and the overall expansion of crypto projects. What is XRP 2.0? At its core, XRP 2.0 is a cryptocurrency project that aims to create a secure and decentralized digital currency ecosystem. Its foundational technology integrates sophisticated blockchain principles with cutting-edge encryption techniques. The overarching goal of XRP 2.0 is to establish itself as a reliable and efficient platform enabling swift transaction execution while prioritizing enhanced privacy protections for its users. The project is promoted as a solution to many limitations faced by existing cryptocurrencies, proposing a system that can handle a higher volume of transactions with improved speed and privacy. This versatility positions XRP 2.0 as a significant contender in a marketplace riddled with various digital currencies. Who is the Creator of XRP 2.0? The identity of the creator behind XRP 2.0 has been flagged as ‘Wilbur.’ However, comprehensive details regarding Wilbur or their associated entity remain elusive. The anonymity of many cryptocurrency creators is not an uncommon phenomenon in the industry, often designed to maintain a degree of privacy and security. Who are the Investors of XRP 2.0? As of now, specific information related to the investment foundations or organizations supporting XRP 2.0 is not publicly available. In the cryptocurrency sector, the backing by reputed investors can significantly influence a project's credibility and success, yet the transparency regarding the financial supporters of XRP 2.0 has not been established. How Does XRP 2.0 Work? XRP 2.0 stands out by employing a combination of blockchain technology and advanced encryption algorithms that ensures secure and decentralized transactions. Its innovative structure includes unique features designed to foster user engagement and broaden functionalities beyond conventional cryptocurrency transactions. Among these features, XRP 2.0 incorporates AI-powered capabilities, such as text-to-image and text-to-speech functionalities. These additions are designed to enhance the interactive experience for users, promoting broader applicability across various sectors. By bridging technological advancements with user-centered design, XRP 2.0 aims to capture the attention of a diverse range of individuals and enterprises looking to integrate cryptocurrency solutions into their operational frameworks. Timeline of XRP 2.0 Understanding XRP 2.0 requires examining the milestones that have defined its journey thus far: July 23, 2023: XRP 2.0 is introduced as a novel cryptocurrency project, aiming to revolutionize secure and decentralized transaction capabilities in the blockchain domain. September 8, 2023: The launching of another project, XRP20, occurs, marking the emergence of an ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain that remains unrelated to XRP 2.0. November 13, 2023: The XRP Ledger undergoes a significant update with the release of rippled server software version 2.0.0. It is essential to note that this development is disconnected from the XRP 2.0 cryptocurrency project. Key Points About XRP 2.0 To distill the essence of XRP 2.0, several critical factors emerge: Unique Features: The inclusion of features like AI-powered text-to-image and text-to-speech further diversifies the potential applications of XRP 2.0. Blockchain Technology: The framework utilizes advanced blockchain mechanisms and encryption protocols, ensuring a secure and decentralized environment for transactions. Scalability and Privacy: XRP 2.0 prioritizes enhanced privacy protections in transaction processes and the scalability necessary to accommodate a growing user base. No Affiliation with Ripple: Importantly, despite its name, XRP 2.0 does not have any allegiance or collaboration with Ripple’s XRP, distinguishing its operational framework and objectives within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Conclusion XRP 2.0 represents an ambitious venture into the cryptocurrency sphere, aiming to offer a combination of security, privacy, and efficiency in digital transactions. By integrating sophisticated technologies and user-friendly features, the project sets out to broaden the horizons of what cryptocurrency can achieve in today's digital economy. While the anonymity of its creator and lack of disclosed investors might raise questions for some, XRP 2.0's focus on advanced functionalities and decentralisation enhances its appeal amidst an increasingly crowded crypto market. As the cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, XRP 2.0 may yet emerge as a pivotal player in the expansion of secure and scalable blockchain solutions.

946 Total ViewsPublished 2024.04.01Updated 2024.12.03

What is XRP 2.0

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of XRP (XRP) are presented below.

活动图片