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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-03-21Última atualização em 2026-03-21

Resumo

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

Criptomoedas em alta

Perguntas 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.

Leituras Relacionadas

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 NewsHá 13m

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

Foresight NewsHá 13m

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.

marsbitHá 30m

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

marsbitHá 30m

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Há 41m

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

链捕手Há 41m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbitHá 56m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbitHá 56m

Trading

Spot

Artigos em Destaque

Como comprar LINK

Bem-vindo à HTX.com!Tornámos a compra de ChainLink (LINK) simples e conveniente.Segue o nosso guia passo a passo para iniciar a tua jornada no mundo das criptos.Passo 1: cria a tua conta HTXUtiliza o teu e-mail ou número de telefone para te inscreveres numa conta gratuita na HTX.Desfruta de um processo de inscrição sem complicações e desbloqueia todas as funcionalidades.Obter a minha contaPasso 2: vai para Comprar Cripto e escolhe o teu método de pagamentoCartão de crédito/débito: usa o teu visa ou mastercard para comprar ChainLink (LINK) instantaneamente.Saldo: usa os fundos da tua conta HTX para transacionar sem problemas.Terceiros: adicionamos métodos de pagamento populares, como Google Pay e Apple Pay, para aumentar a conveniência.P2P: transaciona diretamente com outros utilizadores na HTX.Mercado de balcão (OTC): oferecemos serviços personalizados e taxas de câmbio competitivas para os traders.Passo 3: armazena teu ChainLink (LINK)Depois de comprar o teu ChainLink (LINK), armazena-o na tua conta HTX.Alternativamente, podes enviá-lo para outro lugar através de transferência blockchain ou usá-lo para transacionar outras criptomoedas.Passo 4: transaciona ChainLink (LINK)Transaciona facilmente ChainLink (LINK) no mercado à vista da HTX.Acede simplesmente à tua conta, seleciona o teu par de trading, executa as tuas transações e monitoriza em tempo real.Oferecemos uma experiência de fácil utilização tanto para principiantes como para traders experientes.

975 Visualizações TotaisPublicado em {updateTime}Atualizado em 2026.06.02

Como comprar LINK

Discussões

Bem-vindo à Comunidade HTX. Aqui, pode manter-se informado sobre os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da plataforma e obter acesso a análises profissionais de mercado. As opiniões dos utilizadores sobre o preço de LINK (LINK) são apresentadas abaixo.

活动图片