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

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbit1 год тому

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbit1 год тому

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片