The controversy continues in the crypto ecosystem. While Solana accelerates its partnership with Western Union to launch a USD-backed stablecoin, the XRP community raises an uncomfortable question: do we really need traditional corporations to “disguise” themselves as blockchain?
The Problem with “Suit Innovation”
From the most critical side of the industry, influential voices argue that Western Union is nothing more than a centralized predator that reinvents itself. Its history speaks for itself: abusive fees, slow transfers, and power structures that contradict everything crypto set out to change.
The irony is brutal: we spent a decade building decentralized infrastructure precisely to eliminate intermediaries like this. And now we bring them back with a new label? It's like changing the wheels of a Trabant for those of a Rolls-Royce while keeping the same engine.
XRP: The Original Bridge Asset vs. Stablecoins
Here is the technical difference that matters:
Stablecoins ( proposal from Solana ):
They depend on centralized custodian
Pegged to fiat (USD backed by bank)
They require trust in third parties
XRP:
integrated decentralized DEX
It works as a native custody-free bridge currency.
Instant liquidity between assets without intermediaries
Designed from the ground up for on-chain finance
The XRP Ledger network is literally the technology built for decentralized global settlement. It is not a reinterpretation: it is the original use.
The True Philosophical Debate
This is not just about tokens. It's about what “decentralization” means in 2025:
Position A (Solana): Bringing traditional institutions to blockchain is progress. Greater adoption = victory.
Position B (XRP): If you allow old players to replicate their power structures on-chain, you have failed.
The criticism is harsh but valid: what is the purpose of blockchain if in the end the Western Union still charges $30 for a transfer, only now in Solana?
Numbers that Speak
XRP is priced at $1.89, at the center of this narrative. The fight is not over price: it is about defining which technology solves the real problems of global finance.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Centralized Bridge or True Bridge? The War of XRP against Western Union's Stablecoin
The controversy continues in the crypto ecosystem. While Solana accelerates its partnership with Western Union to launch a USD-backed stablecoin, the XRP community raises an uncomfortable question: do we really need traditional corporations to “disguise” themselves as blockchain?
The Problem with “Suit Innovation”
From the most critical side of the industry, influential voices argue that Western Union is nothing more than a centralized predator that reinvents itself. Its history speaks for itself: abusive fees, slow transfers, and power structures that contradict everything crypto set out to change.
The irony is brutal: we spent a decade building decentralized infrastructure precisely to eliminate intermediaries like this. And now we bring them back with a new label? It's like changing the wheels of a Trabant for those of a Rolls-Royce while keeping the same engine.
XRP: The Original Bridge Asset vs. Stablecoins
Here is the technical difference that matters:
Stablecoins ( proposal from Solana ):
XRP:
The XRP Ledger network is literally the technology built for decentralized global settlement. It is not a reinterpretation: it is the original use.
The True Philosophical Debate
This is not just about tokens. It's about what “decentralization” means in 2025:
The criticism is harsh but valid: what is the purpose of blockchain if in the end the Western Union still charges $30 for a transfer, only now in Solana?
Numbers that Speak
XRP is priced at $1.89, at the center of this narrative. The fight is not over price: it is about defining which technology solves the real problems of global finance.