Ripple Engineer Reveals Why Codius Project Failed Years Ago

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-03-10Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-10

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit23 хв тому

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit23 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit42 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit42 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit51 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit51 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片