Garlinghouse Reveals Why Ripple Really Pivoted To Its Own Stablecoin

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-03-27Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-27

Анотація

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse explained that the company launched its own stablecoin, RLUSD, to internalize a role it was already playing at scale—having previously minted 20% of all USDC due to its large payment flows. The decision was driven by Ripple's substantial balance sheet strength, which positions it to offer a compliant, institutionally-focused stablecoin, especially after observing vulnerabilities like USDC's depeg during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse. Garlinghouse emphasized that trust, licensing, and transparency will differentiate stablecoins as the market matures, and he expects regulatory progress in the U.S. to continue, with further clarity anticipated by the end of May.

Ripple’s decision to launch RLUSD was not a sudden expansion beyond XRP so much as a move to internalize a business it was already helping power at scale. Speaking at FII Priority Miami 2026, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the company’s role in stablecoin flows had grown large enough that building its own product became the logical next step.

Why Ripple Entered the Stablecoin Market

Garlinghouse said the turning point came well before RLUSD’s launch 13 months ago. “Two years ago, we were minting 20% of all USDC,” he said, tying that activity directly to Ripple’s payments business. With more than $100 billion in payment flows already processed, Ripple concluded that if it was already a major engine behind stablecoin usage, it made sense to bring that function in-house.

He also linked the decision to a moment of stress in the stablecoin market. Garlinghouse pointed to USDC’s temporary depeg during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse as a reminder that institutional users care about balance-sheet strength as much as blockchain rails.

“Circle came out and said, hey, we’ll stand in the gap. We’ll guarantee the peg. And it didn’t move because at that point, Circle didn’t have a balance sheet,” he said. “Ripple has on our balance sheet, you know, 60, 70 billion dollars of crypto. We have about four billion dollars of US dollars. And so I think we’re in a position to really have a very compliant, very institutional focused stablecoin.”

According to Garlinghouse, stablecoins are increasingly adopted not because companies want exposure to crypto branding, but because they want a better way to solve treasury, settlement and cross-border transfer problems. That broader shift, he argued, is already reshaping how the sector is perceived.

Garlinghouse compared the current state of crypto to the internet industry in the late 1990s, when companies led with the technology rather than the use case. “We don’t talk about anything as an internet company now because it’s just prevalent in the background,” he said. “And I think that’s where some of the blockchain and crypto based solutions are heading”. Companies, he added, “just want to solve a payments problem. They want to solve a custody problem.”

On market structure, Garlinghouse expects the stablecoin field to get more crowded before it gets smaller. He said the biggest banks are already evaluating whether they should issue their own stablecoins, but questioned whether the market benefits from too many dollar-backed instruments that ultimately serve the same economic function. “We don’t need, you know, 50 US dollar stablecoins. Like, why? Like, they’re all, it’s still, at the end of the day, a U.S. dollar,” he said.

That does not mean he sees no room for differentiation. Instead, he argued that trust, licensing and reserve transparency will become the real competitive variables as the market matures. Ripple, he said, has deliberately taken a compliance-first route, pursuing not just a New York Department of Financial Services license but also an OCC license.

He added that the sector as a whole needs more regulatory verification and disclosure, pointing even to Tether’s renewed push for an audit as evidence that transparency is becoming harder to avoid.

Garlinghouse was similarly upbeat on the US policy backdrop. He described passage of the Genius Act as a major unlock for demand and said corporate executives are now actively asking whether stablecoins should be part of their operations. While he said follow-on legislation around asset classification has been slower, he argued the tone in Washington has already shifted sharply, citing recent coordination between the SEC and CFTC and predicting further progress by the end of May.

“So I think we already have made huge progress in this administration to provide some of that structure and Clarity [Act]. I think clarity will still pass. I was in Washington two days ago, and I think we’ll still get something. [...] I’ll predict by the end of May we’ll get something across,” Garlinghouse said.

At press time, XRP traded at $1.36.

XRP drops below the 200-week EMA again, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat was the main reason Ripple decided to launch its own stablecoin, RLUSD?

ARipple decided to launch RLUSD because its role in stablecoin flows had grown so large that building its own product became the logical next step. The company was already minting 20% of all USDC and processing over $100 billion in payment flows, making it a major engine behind stablecoin usage.

QAccording to Brad Garlinghouse, what event in the stablecoin market highlighted the importance of a strong balance sheet for institutional users?

AGarlinghouse pointed to USDC's temporary depeg during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse as the event that highlighted the importance of balance-sheet strength for institutional users, noting that Circle lacked the balance sheet to guarantee the peg at that time.

QHow does Garlinghouse compare the current state of the crypto industry to the internet in the 1990s?

AGarlinghouse compared the current state of crypto to the internet industry in the late 1990s, where companies led with the technology rather than the use case. He stated that just as we no longer talk about 'internet companies' because the technology is now prevalent in the background, blockchain and crypto-based solutions are heading in the same direction.

QWhat does Garlinghouse believe will be the key competitive differentiators in the mature stablecoin market?

AGarlinghouse believes that trust, licensing, and reserve transparency will become the real competitive variables as the stablecoin market matures.

QWhat positive developments in US policy and regulation did Garlinghouse highlight?

AGarlinghouse was upbeat on US policy, citing the passage of the Genius Act as a major unlock for demand. He also mentioned improved coordination between the SEC and CFTC and predicted that further legislative clarity would be achieved by the end of May.

Пов'язані матеріали

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

Titled "Why Putting a Price on Social Interaction Is Doomed to Fail," this article critiques attempts to monetize social networks directly through SocialFi models, arguing their inevitable failure stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of media dynamics. Using Marshall McLuhan's theory of "hot" and "cold" media, the author posits that social networks are inherently "cold" media. Their value isn't contained in individual posts but is co-created through user participation, interpretation, and fragmented, ongoing interaction (e.g., replies, shares). This ambiguity and need for user involvement are core to their function. The article asserts that SocialFi projects like Friend.tech failed because introducing real-time, tradable financial pricing (a definitive "hot" signal) into this "cold" environment doesn't add a layer—it replaces the medium's essence. The unambiguous price signal overshadows and nullifies the nuanced, participatory social signal. Users become traders, not participants, and when speculative profits vanish, the underlying social ecosystem—never genuinely cultivated—collapses entirely. This principle extends beyond crypto. The author argues platforms like Twitter have gradually "heated up" through metrics (likes, retweets counts, algorithmically defined value), shifting users from participants to performers and eroding organic engagement. The solution isn't to abandon capital but to manage its entry point. Successful models like Substack, Patreon, or Bandcamp allow capital to "condense" at specific, isolated nodes (e.g., subscriptions, one-time payments) without permeating and "heating" every social interaction. They preserve the core "cold," participatory medium while enabling monetization at designated boundaries. The NFT boom and bust serves as a stark parallel: the ancient "cold" medium of collecting (valued for story, community, gradual accumulation) was rapidly destroyed by platforms that introduced real-time floor prices, rarity scores, and trading dashboards, transforming collectors into speculators and vaporizing cultural value when prices fell. The core lesson: "Liquidity equals heat." Injecting high liquidity and definitive pricing into a "cold" participatory medium doesn't optimize it; it fundamentally alters and destroys its value-creating mechanism. The future lies not in pricing every social gesture but in finding precise, non-invasive points for capital to condense without overheating the entire ecosystem.

marsbit5 хв тому

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

marsbit5 хв тому

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA and a first-generation immigrant, delivered the commencement address to Carnegie Mellon University's class of 2026. He shared his personal journey from a humble background to founding NVIDIA, emphasizing resilience, learning from failure, and the responsibility that comes with leadership. Huang framed the present moment as the dawn of the AI revolution, a shift he believes is more profound than previous computing waves. He described AI as fundamentally resetting computing—moving from human-written software to machines that understand, reason, and use tools. This will create a new industry for generating intelligence and transform every sector. While acknowledging AI's potential to automate tasks and displace some jobs, Huang distinguished between the *tasks* of a job and its core *purpose*. He argued AI will augment human capability, not replace humans. The real risk, he stated, is not AI itself, but people being left behind by those who effectively use AI. He presented AI as a generational opportunity for massive infrastructure investment—in chip factories, data centers, energy grids, and advanced manufacturing—that could re-industrialize nations like the U.S. and bridge the digital divide by making computing and intelligent tools accessible to all. Huang called for a balanced approach: advancing AI safely and responsibly, establishing prudent policies, ensuring broad access, and encouraging universal participation. He urged the graduates not to fear the future but to engage with optimism and ambition, reminding them of CMU's motto, "My heart is in the work." His core message was clear: this is their moment to actively build and shape the AI-powered future, not merely observe it.

marsbit1 год тому

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

marsbit1 год тому

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

The article describes an era where AI-generated content is flooding the market, forcing human authors to prove they are not machines. It begins with the example of dozens of AI-written, error-ridden biographies of Henry Kissinger appearing on Amazon within hours of his death, a pattern repeated for other deceased celebrities and even living experts who find fraudulent books under their names. This spam content has exploded, with monthly new book releases on platforms like Amazon reaching 300,000 by late 2025. The issue spans genres, from suspiciously high proportions of AI-written teen romance and self-help books to dangerous, AI-generated foraging guides containing lethal advice. The platforms' automated review systems, designed to catch plagiarism and banned words, are ill-equipped to detect AI-generated text that avoids these pitfalls while being nonsensical or fraudulent. The problem has infiltrated traditional publishing. A major publisher, Hachette, had to recall a bestselling horror novel after AI detection tools suggested 78% of its content was machine-generated. An acclaimed European philosophy book was later revealed to be entirely written by AI under a fake author persona. In response, authors are fighting back. At the 2026 London Book Fair, 10,000 writers published a blank book titled "Don't Steal This Book" containing only their signatures—using emptiness as a protest weapon in an age of AI overproduction. Initiatives like the "Human Author Certification" program have emerged, ironically placing the burden on humans to prove their work is not machine-made. The article warns of a vicious cycle: AI-generated low-quality books pollute the data used to train future AI models, leading to "model collapse" and an ever-worsening flood of digital waste, eroding trust in publishing and devaluing human creativity.

marsbit1 год тому

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片