A foreign media commentary article states that a common criticism regarding XRP may not have hit upon its key design points. The focus of the controversy lies in the fact that the public often ranks various chains based on the scale of their tokenized assets, but supporters argue that this method is not suitable for directly measuring the actual utility of XRP.

Public rankings spark controversy

The discussion stemmed from a type of criticism on social media platforms: XRP ranked quite low on the public tokenization data lists, around 10th place. Comments mentioned that Apex Crypto believed that such lists only counted publicly visible tokenized assets and did not cover another portion of activities.

According to them, some private platforms targeting central bank digital currencies are built on a private version of XRP Ledger. The article also mentions that the official website of Ripple has been introducing relevant CBDC platforms since 2021. However, this information mainly comes from podcast discussions and is not accompanied by any new independent evidence to support it.

The article argues that XRP is more akin to a settlement tool.

The core argument of this comment is that XRP and blockchains ranked by "how many tokenized assets they carry" are not on the same comparative dimension. The article suggests that XRP is closer to the value transfer layer, serving to connect different types of tokenized assets and undertaking settlement functions, rather than directly placing a large amount of real-world assets onto the chain.

According to this logic, if one only looks at how many tokenized assets are hosted on a particular chain, it may underestimate the role of XRP in payment and cross-border settlement scenarios. In other words, supporters attempt to distinguish XRP from a 'asset issuance platform', emphasizing its role in the fund transfer process.

Liquidity logic remains to be verified.

The article further mentions a long-term judgment: if institutions begin to use XRP on a large scale for cross-border settlements in the future, they will need to hold more XRP as liquidity reserves, which could reduce the market circulation volume. Those who support this view believe that this is the aspect that deserves more attention in the valuation discussions of XRP.

However, the comments also acknowledge that the on-demand liquidity channel for Ripple has not yet been fully implemented. The article also mentions that recent price fluctuations in XRP and revenue growth in RLUSD are seen by some supporters as short-term noise, rather than a direct denial of the aforementioned logic.

In addition, the article cites an unverified second-hand claim that a former Federal Reserve official once mentioned in a non-public setting that central banks of some countries might hold XRP for international settlements. Since this information lacks public records and official sources, it is more suitable at this stage to be considered as background for market discussions rather than as confirmed facts.