Millions Of RLUSD Are Gone Forever After This Major Ripple Burn

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-03-14Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-14

Introduzione

Ripple's stablecoin RLUSD has undergone significant supply reductions through a series of major burn transactions. A total of 25 million tokens were recently burned in a single transaction, following earlier burns of 8 million, 3 million, and multiple 15 million and 10 million token removals across both the Ethereum and XRP Ledger blockchains. These burns permanently reduce circulation by sending tokens to inaccessible addresses. However, this activity is part of RLUSD's reserve-backed model, where tokens are burned upon redemption to ensure the circulating supply never exceeds dollar reserves. Despite the burns, larger minting events—including recent issuances of 29 million, 14.9 million, 6 million, and 3 million RLUSD—have supported the stablecoin's growth. RLUSD's market cap now exceeds $1.56 billion, reflecting its expanding adoption since launch.

Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin RLUSD is seeing a period of supply reductions, with millions of tokens permanently removed from circulation in a series of burn transactions tied to Ripple’s treasury activity. Blockchain trackers monitoring RLUSD activity show that multiple large burns have taken place recently, eliminating tens of millions of tokens from supply. The most recent burn alone accounted for 25 million tokens in one move, but that figure only tells part of the story.

Latest Burn Eliminates 25 Million RLUSD

The most recent transaction flagged by the Ripple Stablecoin Tracker on X saw 25 million RLUSD burned at the RLUSD treasury, the headline figure in what has been a multi-step reduction of the stablecoin’s circulating supply in recent days. Stablecoin burns permanently remove tokens from circulation by sending them to an inaccessible address, making them impossible to recover or spend again. In the case of RLUSD, the transaction effectively wiped out 25 million tokens from the total supply. That alone would have been notable, but multiple additional burns preceded it.

Before the latest 25 million token burn, Ripple had already destroyed several million RLUSD in separate transactions. These burns were carried out on both the Ethereum blockchain and the XRP Ledger, which are the two blockchains that RLUSD runs on.

Ripple Stablecoin Tracker on X recorded a transaction in which 8 million RLUSD were permanently removed from circulation. That burn did not occur in isolation. It followed another earlier transaction that destroyed 3 million RLUSD, continuing the pattern of supply reductions tied to Ripple’s treasury activity.

Looking further back, the sequence becomes even more notable. Prior to those two burns, the tracker had already flagged a 15 million RLUSD burn, followed by another 15 million RLUSD removal on the Ethereum blockchain. Before that, a separate transaction that eliminated 10 million RLUSD from circulation on the XRP Ledger.

Why These Burns Keep Happening

The volume of burns in recent days is not a red flag but a feature. RLUSD operates under a reserve-backed model in which every token in circulation corresponds to a dollar held in reserve. Ripple burns the tokens to guarantee the circulating supply never exceeds what is backed when holders redeem their RLUSD.

Burns of this scale would only become a concern if they consistently outweighed the number of tokens being created. That does not appear to be the case with RLUSD. Updates from the Ripple Stablecoin Tracker account show that the recent burns have been accompanied by even larger minting activity. In the past few days alone, the RLUSD treasury minted 3 million RLUSD, 6 million RLUSD, 29 million RLUSD, and 14.9 million RLUSD, all of which entered circulation on the Ethereum network.

RLUSD itself has continued growing since its launch and has steadily climbed in size, with the stablecoin now holding a market capitalization of more than $1.56 billion.

Price recovers again | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the total amount of RLUSD tokens burned in the most recent transaction mentioned in the article?

AThe most recent transaction burned 25 million RLUSD tokens.

QOn which two blockchains does the RLUSD stablecoin operate?

ARLUSD operates on both the Ethereum blockchain and the XRP Ledger.

QAccording to the article, why are these large-scale burns of RLUSD not a cause for concern?

AThe burns are not a concern because they are a feature of the reserve-backed model to ensure the circulating supply is always backed by dollars in reserve, and recent minting activity has been even larger than the burns.

QWhat is the current market capitalization of the RLUSD stablecoin as stated in the article?

AThe RLUSD stablecoin currently has a market capitalization of more than $1.56 billion.

QWhat mechanism is used to permanently remove RLUSD tokens from circulation?

ATokens are permanently removed from circulation by sending them to an inaccessible address in a process called burning, making them impossible to recover or spend again.

Letture associate

The 4 Truths and Fee Traps Behind Polymarket's LP Market Making Incentives

Polymarket, a prediction market platform, has recently shifted its focus to incentivizing liquidity providers (LPs) to address its core issue of low liquidity. While most markets remain free, it now charges a taker fee on specific markets like crypto price movements and select sports events. This fee, highest near 50% probability, funds new LP reward programs. There are two primary reward systems: one pays LPs when their limit orders are executed (maker rewards), and another rewards simply for placing orders within a set spread to provide liquidity, even if they don't get filled. A third mechanism allows anyone to sponsor additional incentives for specific markets. A positive view argues this structure values genuine liquidity over mere trading volume, making fees earned and rewards received a potential key, anti-sybil metric for a future POLY token airdrop. It rewards users who improve market depth and stability. A contrasting, negative view claims the LP program is a "trap." Critics argue that professional market makers avoid it due to insider trading risks and that most LPs are actually losing money due to hidden "LP wear and tear" (impermanent loss), only participating based on speculation of a valuable airdrop. They warn that if Polymarket expands fees to fund these unsustainable rewards, it could lose its competitive edge of zero fees and better odds compared to traditional sportsbooks. Proposed solutions include a fixed fee only on profits, using a native POLY pool for liquidity, or charging for premium products like parlays instead of core markets.

marsbit46 min fa

The 4 Truths and Fee Traps Behind Polymarket's LP Market Making Incentives

marsbit46 min fa

The 4 Truths Behind Polymarket's LP Market-Making Incentives and the Fee Trap

Polymarket, a prediction market platform, has recently shifted its incentive structure towards rewarding Liquidity Providers (LPs) to solve its core problem of low market depth. While most markets remain free, it now charges a taker fee on specific markets (all Crypto markets, NCAAB basketball, and Serie A football) to fund new LP reward programs. The fee is calculated on a symmetric curve, highest near 50% probability. The platform has introduced two main incentive systems: one rewards LPs whose limit orders are executed (Maker Incentives), and another rewards LPs simply for providing resting liquidity, even if orders aren't filled (Liquidity Incentives). A third system allows anyone to sponsor additional rewards for specific markets. A key argument is that the fees paid and rewards earned could be a strong anti-sybil metric for a potential POLY token airdrop, valuing genuine liquidity provision over mere trading volume. However, a counter viewpoint argues the LP program is a potential trap. Critics claim that the displayed ROI for LPs is misleading as it doesn't account for "LP wear and tear"—losses from filled orders that can't be easily exited. They state professional market makers avoid it due to insider trading risks and that the model of subsidizing liquidity with massive daily rewards is unsustainable. The concern is that widespread fee implementation could erase Polymarket's competitive edge over traditional betting platforms. Proposed solutions include a fixed fee on profits only, using a POLY token for native liquidity, and charging for premium products like parlays instead of core markets.

Odaily星球日报48 min fa

The 4 Truths Behind Polymarket's LP Market-Making Incentives and the Fee Trap

Odaily星球日报48 min fa

Understanding x402 and MPP: Two Approaches to Agent Payments

Stripe's MPP and x402 represent two competing approaches to enabling machine-to-machine payments, both leveraging the long-dormant HTTP 402 status code ("Payment Required"). x402, led by Coinbase, is a minimalist protocol that embeds payment directly into HTTP requests. It requires no accounts, API keys, or intermediaries. A server returns a 402 response with payment details; the client pays on-chain and resubmits the request with a proof. It's open-source, chain-agnostic (currently supporting Base, Polygon, Solana), and designed for open, permissionless systems. However, current usage is low, with small microtransactions. MPP, developed by Stripe and Tempo, is a full-stack solution built for high-frequency agent transactions. Its core innovation is sessions, allowing an agent to pre-authorize a spending limit and make numerous micro-payments within it without repeated on-chain transactions. It runs on the Tempo blockchain, optimized for high throughput and sub-second confirmations. Crucially, it integrates with Stripe's existing compliance, risk, and fiat infrastructure, including support for credit cards via Shared Payment Tokens (SPTs). While x402 offers simplicity and decentralization, MPP provides scalability and enterprise-grade features. Stripe supports both, aiming to capture agent payment flows regardless of the underlying protocol. The ecosystem is still experimental, but major players like Google, Visa, and Anthropic are involved. The choice depends on the use case: x402 for open, long-tail applications, and MPP for commercial, high-volume scenarios.

marsbit1 h fa

Understanding x402 and MPP: Two Approaches to Agent Payments

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片