Ripple Engineer Reveals Why Codius Project Failed Years Ago

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-03-10Última atualização em 2026-03-10

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbitHá 36m

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbitHá 36m

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbitHá 55m

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbitHá 55m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片