Ex-Ripple CTO: You Could Have Bought Lots of Bitcoin At Less Than $10. Here’s Why

@media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:320px;height:100px;} } @media only screen and (min-width: 728px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:728px;height:90px;} }

Debates about fairness have followed cryptocurrency since its earliest days. Many latecomers believe transformative wealth was reserved for a small group of insiders, while the broader public arrived too late to benefit.

This perception continues to shape how people interpret Bitcoin’s rise and the broader evolution of digital assets. Yet industry veterans increasingly argue that the story looks very different when viewed through the uncertainty that defined crypto’s formative years.

David Schwartz, former Ripple CTO and a key architect of the XRP Ledger, recently challenged the popular narrative surrounding early access and unequal opportunity. Drawing on more than a decade of firsthand experience in the crypto sector, he reframed the discussion around risk tolerance, conviction, and the psychological barriers that prevented widespread participation when Bitcoin traded for only a few dollars.

Risk, Not Privilege, Defined Early Adoption

Schwartz’s core argument rests on historical context. During Bitcoin’s early years, the technology lacked regulatory clarity, institutional support, and reliable infrastructure. Most observers viewed the experiment as fragile or even destined to fail. Anyone purchasing large amounts of Bitcoin at extremely low prices accepts a genuine possibility of losing everything.

From this perspective, extraordinary long-term gains reflected a willingness to embrace uncertainty rather than access to an unfair advantage. What appears obvious in hindsight felt highly improbable in real time. Early adopters did not simply arrive first; they assumed meaningful financial and reputational risk when few others would.

The Power of Survivor Bias

Schwartz also highlighted survivor bias as a major source of misunderstanding. Public memory tends to celebrate the small number of investors who succeeded while ignoring the many failed projects, abandoned tokens, and total losses that characterized crypto’s early landscape. This selective storytelling creates the illusion that wealth accumulation followed a predictable path instead of a deeply uncertain journey.

By correcting this distortion, Schwartz encourages a more balanced interpretation of crypto history—one that recognizes both the risks taken and the failures endured alongside the successes now widely discussed.

What This Means for Today’s Investors

The broader implication extends beyond Bitcoin’s past. Schwartz’s reasoning suggests that similar opportunities may still emerge in new technologies, though they remain difficult to recognize while uncertainty persists. Many people claim they would have supported Bitcoin or Ethereum earlier under fairer conditions, yet they often hesitate when facing comparable ambiguity in present-day innovations.

Innovation cycles consistently reward conviction before consensus forms. Waiting for complete certainty usually means entering after the most dramatic growth has already occurred.

Turning Perspective Into Insight

Schwartz ultimately redirects the conversation away from regret and toward awareness. Understanding why past opportunities felt too risky can help investors approach current uncertainty with clearer judgment.

Rather than viewing crypto history as evidence of unfairness, this perspective reframes it as a lesson in courage, timing, and the enduring relationship between risk and reward.

Disclaimer*: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.*