Chainlink Maxi Shares Why LINK Is A Better Institutional Bet Than XRP

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-03-21Actualizado a 2026-03-21

Resumen

In a controversial post, Chainlink ambassador Zach Rynes sparked debate by arguing that LINK is a superior institutional investment compared to XRP. He criticized Ripple for prioritizing equity shareholders over XRP token holders, claiming the company uses XRP sale proceeds to fund corporate acquisitions and stock buybacks that don’t benefit token investors. Rynes dismissed the XRP Ledger as an "obsolete ghost chain" with minimal market share in real-world assets and stablecoins, while highlighting Chainlink’s dominance in DeFi, institutional partnerships, and structurally aligned incentives—noting that even Chainlink employees are rewarded in LINK, not equity. Ripple’s former CTO, David Schwartz, countered that Ripple’s consistent XRP sales created lower entry prices for buyers, a claim Rynes rejected as "elite-tier gaslighting."

Chainlink Maxi Zach Rynes has ignited fierce debate across the crypto community after sharing a pointed critique of XRP and Ripple, drawing significant backlash from supporters and former executives. The ambassador has framed Chainlink’s native token LINK as the superior institutional play, labeling XRP a ghost chain. He also criticizes Ripple’s recent share buybacks, suggesting that the company prioritizes shareholders over XRP investors.

Chainlink Maxi Takes Aim At XRP And Ripple

In a recent post on X, Rynes argued that XRP holders are effectively funding a company that has openly stated it will prioritize equity shareholders over token investors. He explained that when a company sells both tokens and equity to investors, it creates two competing stakeholder groups whose economic interests diverge. As a result, when excess revenue is present, equity investors hold superior, legally enforceable rights, leaving XRP holders at a disadvantage.

Rynes argued that Ripple sells XRP and uses proceeds to acquire companies and fund stock buybacks that benefit only shareholders. He also noted that, even under oath in court filings, the crypto company admitted that XRP’s bridge currency use case is demand-neutral and does not affect price.

Furthermore, he dismissed the XRP Ledger (XRPL) as an “obsolete ghost chain” sitting outside the top 40 chains by usage, holding less than 1% market share in real-world assets and less than 0.01% in stablecoins. The Chainlink maxi further noted that Ripple itself issued 90% of the RLUSD stablecoin on Ethereum and has since expanded to additional chains outside the XRP Ledger, including BNY Mellon’s private EVM chain.

Supporting Chainlink, Rynes stated that LINK presented a structurally cleaner investment case compared to XRP because it has no equity investors competing for value. He explained that every layer of network growth focuses primarily on the native token and that even Chainlink Lab employees receive long-term incentive rewards in LINK rather than equity.

He pointed to Chainlink’s more than 70% market share in DeFi with $60 billion in secured TVL, alongside institutional partnerships with SWIFT, the DTCC, Euroclear, JPMorgan, and others as proof of tangible adoption. The Chainlink maxi finally concluded that the LINK token represents the best index bet on institutional blockchain adoption. At the same time, XRP functions as a “bank-themed meme coin” that Ripple sells to retail to fund corporate acquisitions.

Ripple’s Former CTO Fires Back

The debate escalated when Ripple’s former Chief Technology Officer (CTO), David Schwartz, entered the conversation. Schwartz argued that Ripple’s consistent and predictable XRP selling over five years created sustained downward price pressure, which he claimed actually benefited buyers who accumulated tokens at lower prices than they would have otherwise paid.

Rynes sharply rejected the rebuttal, calling it “elite-tier gaslighting,” and questioning whether Schwartz argued that suppressing XRP’s price through Ripple’s own selling activity was a benefit to holders. Schwartz doubled down, criticizing the comment and insisting that a constant factor already priced into the market affects buyers and sellers equally. He said that anyone who purchased XRP benefited from low entry prices just as much as they might be affected on the way out.

LINK trading at $9 on the 1D chart | Source: LINKUSDT on Tradingview.com

Criptos en tendencia

Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to Zach Rynes, why is LINK a better institutional investment than XRP?

AZach Rynes argues that LINK is a structurally cleaner investment because it has no equity investors competing for value, all network growth focuses on the native token, and it has dominant market share in DeFi with major institutional partnerships, unlike XRP which he claims is a 'ghost chain' and a 'bank-themed meme coin' sold to fund corporate acquisitions.

QWhat specific criticism did Rynes level against Ripple's financial practices?

ARynes criticized Ripple for selling XRP and using the proceeds to acquire companies and fund stock buybacks that only benefit equity shareholders, while openly prioritizing them over XRP token investors.

QHow did Ripple's former CTO, David Schwartz, respond to the claims about Ripple's XRP sales?

ADavid Schwartz argued that Ripple's consistent and predictable XRP selling over five years created sustained downward price pressure, which he claimed actually benefited buyers by allowing them to accumulate tokens at lower prices than they would have otherwise paid.

QWhat did Rynes cite as evidence of Chainlink's tangible adoption and institutional use?

ARynes cited Chainlink's more than 70% market share in DeFi with $60 billion in secured TVL, alongside institutional partnerships with major entities like SWIFT, the DTCC, Euroclear, and JPMorgan.

QWhat did Rynes claim about the XRP Ledger's (XRPL) usage and market position?

ARynes dismissed the XRP Ledger as an 'obsolete ghost chain' sitting outside the top 40 chains by usage, holding less than 1% market share in real-world assets and less than 0.01% in stablecoins.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight NewsHace 13 min(s)

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight NewsHace 13 min(s)

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手Hace 42 min(s)

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手Hace 42 min(s)

Trading

Spot

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar LINK

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar ChainLink (LINK) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar ChainLink (LINK) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu ChainLink (LINK)Después de comprar tu ChainLink (LINK), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear ChainLink (LINK)Tradear fácilmente con ChainLink (LINK) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

1.1k Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.13Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar LINK

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de LINK (LINK).

活动图片