The post Ripple News: Analyst Reveals Whether Ripple Making Billions Actually Benefit XRP Holders appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

Charles Hoskinson, founder of Cardano, has been publicly critical of Ripple and XRP in recent months, making claims that the XRP community says are inaccurate.

Hoskinson’s specific claims centred on four points. That Ripple dumps XRP whenever it wants. XRP holders have no ownership stake in Ripple Prime or RLUSD. That there is no staking yield for XRP holders. And that Ripple’s business activities create no meaningful benefit for token holders.

Crypto commentator Max Avery reacted to the same and said Ripple’s XRP holdings are locked in an escrow system with a fixed monthly release schedule that has been publicly verifiable on-chain for years. “It always is kind of perplexing to me when I see people think that Ripple just dumps whenever they feel like it,” Avery said. 

The Utility Argument

On whether Ripple’s business benefits XRP holders, Avery framed the connection as structural. XRP serves as a neutral bridge asset in cross-border value transfer with no counterparty risk. Every major Ripple product including RLUSD, Ripple Prime, and cross-border payment infrastructure connects back to the XRP Ledger and drives demand for the token itself.

“The XRP token serving as the neutral bridge asset is ultimately going to lead to an increased value for XRP and increased demand for XRP,” Avery said.

ETF and treasury company inflows support that view. Evernorth and similar XRP treasury vehicles are accumulating tokens off the open market. “There’s been a tremendous amount of interest in XRP despite the FUD, despite people posting stuff about how it’s a scam,” Avery noted. “It’s the same broken record we’ve heard for ten plus years.”

Why Institutions Are Moving Carefully

Avery pushed back on frustration about the pace of institutional adoption with a pointed analogy. “Think of how hard it is for these institutions to change their email service provider, let alone change over something that’s running all of their liquidity and payment infrastructure.”

The challenge is coordination as much as technology. An institution cannot go live with new payment rails if its counterparties are not yet on the same infrastructure. Legal clarity through the CLARITY Act is also a prerequisite many institutions are waiting for before committing fully.

“They’re not going to go fast,” Avery said. “And I think that’s the right decision because I don’t want to go to the bank and be told sorry, we can’t give you any money this week, we screwed up.”