XRP Ledger Hard Fork In 8 Days? Upgrade Deadline Sparks Network Split Debate

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-05-19Обновлено 2026-05-19

Введение

The XRP Ledger community is debating whether the mandatory v3.1.3 software upgrade constitutes a hard fork, with critics warning that nodes not updated before the May 27 deadline will be cut off from the network. The update includes a critical fix amendment, which, according to network rules, will automatically activate after a set period. Early data showed a majority of nodes had not upgraded, sparking concerns about a potential network split. Proponents argue the process is not a contentious fork but a standard "amendment blocking" security feature designed to protect network integrity by isolating outdated software. They emphasize that responsible node maintenance is required, and the mechanism ensures all participants correctly interpret transaction rules. Infrastructure experts also note that raw node counts may overstate the risk, as many inactive or non-critical nodes could update last-minute. The debate centers on governance and the operational health of the decentralized network.

The XRP Ledger community is debating whether an approaching v3.1.3 upgrade amounts to a hard fork after infrastructure operators warned that nodes failing to update before the fix amendment activates will no longer be able to communicate with the network.

The dispute erupted after XRPL validator operator Vet said version 3.1.3 of rippled had been available for more than a week, with 40% of the network upgraded at the time of his post (May 18). He warned that the fix amendment included in the release would become active in nine days and that “every node that hasn’t been updated to 3.1.3 will be unable to communicate to the network.”

In a later update, RippleX head of engineering J. Ayo Akinyele said 44% of the XRPL network had upgraded and urged node operators to move quickly, adding: “Only 8 days left before the fix amendment activates — don’t be left out!”

XRPL Hard Fork Debate Heats Up

According to XRPL.org, rippled is the reference server implementation of the XRP Ledger protocol. The 3.1.3 release introduces the fixCleanup3_1_3 amendment, a package of fixes for NFTs, Permissioned Domains, Vaults and the Lending Protocol. Because of the importance of those fixes, XRPL.org said the amendment’s default vote is set to “Yes.”

The “hard fork” framing came from critics who argued that, as of the early upgrade figures, a majority of network nodes were still on the path to being cut off. X user ScamDaddy wrote: “The XRPL will hard fork in 9 days. As of this moment, 60% of the network will be forked off.” The post then turned the argument into a governance challenge: “But who’s to say 3.1.3 should be XRP mainnet, Ripple? Vet? 60% is the majority after all!”

That framing drew pushback from XRPL community members who argued the mechanism is better understood as amendment blocking, not an accidental or contentious chain split. XRPL’s amendment system uses validator voting to approve protocol changes that affect transaction processing. According to XRPL.org, an amendment passes if it receives more than 80% support from trusted validators for two weeks, after which the change applies permanently to future ledger versions.

The technical consequence for outdated servers is still material. XRPL.org says amendment blocking is a security feature intended to protect data accuracy when old software no longer understands the active rules of the network. Servers running earlier versions without the amendment code cannot determine ledger validity, submit or process transactions, participate in consensus, or vote on future amendments; upgrading to a newer rippled version unblocks them.

Daniel Keller, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for Eminence, a blockchain infrastructure company that runs a Full History Node for the XRP Ledger, argued that raw node counts may overstate the operational risk. “The only question is: how many of them actually matter to XRPL operations?” he wrote. “How many are abandoned? How many would just update a few hours late? How many are actually relevant infrastructure?”

Keller framed the cutoff as maintenance discipline rather than a decentralization failure: “Decentralisation does not mean dead weight gets carried. Running a node is a responsibility, not a participation trophy. If you can’t maintain infrastructure, you should get filtered out. That is network hygiene.”

Krippenreiter made a similar case, saying the negative connotation around “forking” can obscure XRPL’s design. “Forking has a negative connotation because it sounds like the network is less secure because of it, when in reality, at least on the XRP Ledger, the amendment block mechanism itself, ironically, is a security feature,” he wrote. “It is a security mechanism so that no transaction data or rules on XRPL are interpreted wrongly by any node that didn’t already update.”

At press time, XRP traded at $1.38.

XRP bulls must break the 0.618 Fib, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main debate in the XRP Ledger community regarding the v3.1.3 upgrade?

AThe debate is over whether the approaching v3.1.3 upgrade constitutes a hard fork that could split the network, or if it is better understood as a standard amendment blocking process, which is a security feature to protect data accuracy.

QWhat happens to nodes that fail to update to rippled version 3.1.3 before the fix amendment activates?

ANodes that have not been updated to version 3.1.3 will be unable to communicate with the network. They cannot determine ledger validity, submit or process transactions, participate in consensus, or vote on future amendments.

QWhat is the purpose of the fixCleanup3_1_3 amendment included in the rippled 3.1.3 release?

AThe fixCleanup3_1_3 amendment is a package of fixes for NFTs, Permissioned Domains, Vaults, and the Lending Protocol on the XRP Ledger.

QAccording to critics, why was the situation framed as a 'hard fork'?

ACritics framed it as a 'hard fork' because, based on early upgrade figures, a majority (60%) of network nodes were on a path to being cut off, which they argued could create a governance challenge about which chain should be considered the mainnet.

QHow do defenders of the process, like Daniel Keller, view the potential cutoff of outdated nodes?

ADefenders like Daniel Keller view the cutoff as necessary maintenance discipline and 'network hygiene,' arguing that decentralization does not mean carrying 'dead weight.' Running a node is a responsibility, and outdated infrastructure that cannot be maintained should be filtered out.

Похожее

When Hyperliquid Steals Solana's 'Internet Capital Market' Script

The article "When Hyperliquid Steals Solana's 'Internet Capital Markets' Playbook" discusses Solana's struggles to maintain its "internet capital markets" narrative by 2026. Despite its initial success as a high-performance "Ethereum killer," SOL's price has underperformed, dropping significantly compared to other major cryptocurrencies. Solana's vision of a global, on-chain trading network for all assets is being challenged not primarily by Ethereum, but by Hyperliquid. Hyperliquid, evolving from a perpetual contracts platform into a dedicated financial infrastructure Layer 1, has become a major beneficiary of the shift of derivatives trading from centralized exchanges to on-chain. The article argues that for high-frequency financial trading, a specialized, performance-focused chain like Hyperliquid may be more suitable than a general-purpose ecosystem like Solana. Further compounding Solana's issues was a major $200+ million exploit on its key perpetual protocol, Drift, in April, which damaged market confidence. In response, Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko heavily promoted the protocol Phoenix as a replacement, boosting its visibility but not its trading volume, which remains far behind leading platforms. Solana supporters have launched a public critique of Hyperliquid's decentralization, pointing to its limited validators and closed-source code. Critics, however, note Solana's own declining validator count and centralization metrics. This strategy has also caused internal friction, with developers of other Solana protocols expressing discontent over the foundation's perceived favoritism towards Phoenix. The conclusion is that Hyperliquid's rise represents a challenge to the "general-purpose blockchain" narrative, proving that the core of a capital market might be a specialized trading engine rather than a broad ecosystem. If Solana cannot regain dominance in derivatives, it risks remaining a "meme coin paradise" while its grand "internet capital markets" ambition slips away.

marsbit2 ч. назад

When Hyperliquid Steals Solana's 'Internet Capital Market' Script

marsbit2 ч. назад

When Hyperliquid Steals Solana's 'Internet Capital Markets' Playbook

The article discusses how Solana's grand vision of becoming an "Internet Capital Markets" platform is facing significant challenges in 2026, primarily from the unexpected rise of Hyperliquid. Solana's performance has weakened, with its token SOL experiencing the largest price decline among major cryptocurrencies. Its core narrative of building a global, chain-based marketplace for all assets is under pressure both internally and externally. Hyperliquid, originally a perpetual futures exchange, has evolved into a dedicated Layer 1 financial infrastructure network. Its focused, trading-centric approach is attracting capital and challenging the assumption that a "general-purpose" ecosystem like Solana is necessary for a capital market. Hyperliquid's success suggests that for high-frequency trading, superior performance, liquidity, and user experience may be more critical than a broad application ecosystem. Internally, Solana's strategy suffered a blow from a major hack on the Drift Protocol in April, resulting in over $200 million in losses. In response, Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko has heavily promoted Phoenix as a new decentralized perpetual futures platform on Solana. While this boosted Phoenix's visibility, its trading volume remains far behind leading platforms. Solana's community has launched a rhetorical attack against Hyperliquid, questioning its decentralization due to its limited validator set and closed-source code. Critics, however, point out Solana's own decreasing validator count and increasing centralization of stake. This focus on "decentralization metrics" has also caused internal friction, with other Solana ecosystem developers expressing discontent over the foundation's perceived favoritism towards Phoenix. The article concludes that the rise of Hyperliquid represents a challenge to the "general-purpose blockchain" narrative, proving that an efficient trading engine might be more central to a capital market than a vast ecosystem. If Solana cannot regain dominance in the derivatives space, it risks remaining a "meme coin paradise" rather than achieving its ambition of hosting global assets.

链捕手2 ч. назад

When Hyperliquid Steals Solana's 'Internet Capital Markets' Playbook

链捕手2 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片