In the fast-paced and often turbulent world of cryptocurrencies, controversies are far from rare. One of the longest-standing flashpoints has been the debate surrounding XRP, the digital asset associated with Ripple Labs. Recently, this conversation reignited with fresh vigor when Ryan Selkis, the outspoken founder of Messari—a prominent crypto research and data platform—publicly criticized XRP and its surrounding ecosystem. His remarks have stirred debates in crypto communities, fueled reactions from both supporters and detractors, and reopened questions about transparency, decentralization, and regulatory compliance.
This article explores the background of XRP, the nature of the criticisms levied by Selkis, reactions from the XRP community, and the broader implications for the crypto industry.
The Background: Ripple and XRP
XRP was launched in 2012 by Ripple Labs Inc. with the aim of providing a faster, more efficient system for cross-border payments. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, XRP doesn’t rely on traditional mining; instead, transactions are verified through a unique consensus mechanism. This design choice has allowed XRP to process transactions faster and at a lower cost than many of its blockchain counterparts.
Ripple has always positioned XRP as a utility token for banks and financial institutions, a vision that distinguishes it from more decentralized projects like Bitcoin, which aims to be a store of value and medium of exchange for everyone. Ripple’s centralized approach and tight integration with financial institutions have both gained it allies in the traditional finance sector and critics in the crypto purist community.
Ryan Selkis and Messari: A Quick Overview
Ryan Selkis is a well-known figure in the crypto industry. Before founding Messari in 2018, he worked at CoinDesk and Digital Currency Group. Messari is a data analytics and research firm focused on providing transparency and accurate information to investors and institutions navigating the complex crypto space.
Selkis has earned a reputation for being blunt, data-driven, and unafraid to call out projects he believes are misleading investors. His skepticism toward XRP is not new, but his latest statements have reignited the controversy in 2025, a year where regulatory uncertainty and market recovery have dominated headlines.
Selkis’ Criticisms of XRP
Ryan Selkis’ main criticisms of XRP can be grouped into several key points:
1. Lack of Decentralization
Selkis has repeatedly argued that XRP is not truly decentralized. According to him, Ripple Labs has too much control over the supply, development, and governance of XRP. While Ripple insists that the network is decentralized and operates independently of the company, critics like Selkis point to Ripple’s substantial holdings of XRP tokens—reportedly around 50% of total supply—as evidence of centralization.
2. Questionable Token Economics
Selkis has accused Ripple of dumping XRP onto retail investors to fund its operations, a claim that has long circulated within the crypto space. Despite Ripple’s denials and attempts to increase transparency, Selkis and others argue that the periodic sale of XRP from Ripple’s escrow wallets affects market prices and undermines investor trust.
3. Regulatory Ambiguity
Even after Ripple’s partial legal victory against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2023, Selkis remains critical of the project’s regulatory stance. He contends that the legal clarity is overstated and that XRP may still pose regulatory risks, especially as global authorities intensify their scrutiny on crypto assets.
4. Community Cult-Like Behavior
One of the more polarizing remarks Selkis has made is about the XRP community itself, which he has described as “cult-like” and “detached from reality.” He has criticized XRP fans for blindly defending the project and attacking anyone who voices legitimate concerns.
5. Transparency and Accountability
Messari has tried multiple times to include XRP in its disclosure registry—a database of verified and transparent crypto project information—but has reportedly faced obstacles. Selkis claims this reluctance highlights a broader unwillingness from Ripple to be held to the same standards of transparency that other leading projects are adopting.
The Ripple Effect: Community Backlash and Defense
Predictably, Selkis’ criticism did not go unanswered. The XRP community, one of the most vocal and organized in the crypto space, came out swinging.
On X (formerly Twitter), countless users lambasted Selkis for being biased, accused him of spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and pointed to what they perceive as Messari’s preference for Ethereum-centric or venture-capital-funded tokens.
Ripple’s CTO, David Schwartz, also subtly clapped back by reiterating XRP’s unique consensus protocol and its use case in global remittances. He emphasized that Ripple is transparent with its token holdings and publishes regular escrow reports.
Despite the backlash, Selkis doubled down, insisting that his critiques are rooted in data, not emotion. He reiterated his call for accountability and urged investors to distinguish between marketing narratives and actual utility.
Broader Implications for the Crypto Industry
The XRP-Messari feud is more than just a Twitter spat—it symbolizes deeper tensions in the crypto world. These include the clash between ideals of decentralization and real-world utility, the difficulty of measuring transparency, and the challenge of maintaining constructive criticism in tribal digital communities.
1. Transparency is Still a Work in Progress
Selkis’ emphasis on transparency is a wake-up call for the industry. As crypto matures, investors and regulators alike demand clear, auditable data. If Ripple and other projects wish to operate at institutional scale, they’ll need to adopt more robust reporting standards. Messari’s registry is one way forward, but broader industry adoption is needed.
2. Community Behavior Shapes Reputation
The aggressive defense mounted by XRP holders—though understandable—can sometimes backfire. When communities attack critics rather than engage with their concerns, it creates an echo chamber that repels outsiders and fuels suspicion. Projects should encourage open dialogue instead of defensiveness.
3. The Need for Constructive Criticism
Criticism, when fact-based and well-intentioned, can help projects evolve. Ryan Selkis may be sharp-tongued, but his questions about XRP’s decentralization, token economics, and regulatory strategy are important. The crypto industry must learn to accept and respond to criticism without resorting to character attacks.
4. Regulatory Challenges Aren’t Over
Ripple’s partial win in court has given XRP some breathing room, but regulators across the globe are still tightening the noose. Projects must stay ahead of compliance requirements and not assume that one court decision settles all questions. Critics like Selkis remind the community to remain vigilant.
The Way Forward: Can Ripple and Messari Find Common Ground?
Though both Selkis and Ripple appear entrenched in their positions, there is room for a more productive engagement. Ripple could consider working with data platforms like Messari to improve transparency and reporting. At the same time, Messari could benefit from diversifying its focus beyond its perceived Ethereum-first approach.
A shared commitment to data integrity, user protection, and constructive discourse could lead to a healthier ecosystem. However, this will require both sides to lower the volume and raise the standard of debate.
Conclusion
The criticisms levied by Messari founder Ryan Selkis against XRP and Ripple are emblematic of the broader growing pains faced by the crypto industry. As the space matures, demands for accountability, decentralization, and transparency will only grow louder. Whether you agree with Selkis or align with Ripple’s vision, the debate is a healthy reminder that scrutiny is a sign of progress—not persecution.
In a world where financial systems are being reimagined from the ground up, no project is immune to criticism. And as XRP continues to play a prominent role in the conversation about crypto’s future, the voices questioning its practices—like Ryan Selkis’—are not a threat, but a crucial part of building trust and legitimacy.