Ripple CTO Explains XRP Supply Amid Comparisons to Bitcoin Holdings  

• Ripple CTO David Schwartz links XRP supply metrics to Bitcoin’s dormant holdings, sparking industry discussions. 
• Discrepancies in XRP supply data highlight challenges in standardizing cryptocurrency metrics. 
• XRP’s locked escrow system impacts circulating supply calculations, adding complexity to market analysis. 

The concept of the “circulating supply” has once again come into focus in the world of cryptocurrencies, with Ripple CTO David Schwartz comparing XRP to Bitcoin. His comments were made in reaction to the variation of the XRP circulating supply that has been seen across various platforms.

Circulating Supply Discrepancies Raise Questions

According to CoinMarketCap, the circulating supply of XRP is 57.64 billion, while XRPScan puts it at 62.23 billion. Thus, Schwartz tried to resolve the issue by defining what he meant by ‘circulating supply’ which is different for different platforms. He added that identifying what can be considered as circulating assets is not easy and ambiguous.

Schwartz said, for instance, that over one million bitcoins associated with the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, have not been spent since the beginning of Bitcoin. While technically existing on the blockchain, these coins are often excluded from circulation due to their inactivity.

He stated, “For a Bitcoin analogy, are Satoshi’s bitcoins circulating? Reasonable people can even disagree on which bitcoins are Satoshi’s.” His perspective emphasizes the nuanced criteria influencing circulating supply calculations across digital assets.

XRP’s Circulating Supply Dynamics

Ripple’s XRP holdings include tokens locked in on-ledger escrows, which are released monthly over a 42-month schedule. Until released, Ripple cannot access or utilize these tokens. This structure influences interpretations of XRP’s circulating supply, further complicating accurate reporting.

The debate underscores broader challenges in standardizing metrics for cryptocurrency markets. The lack of consensus impacts transparency and complicates comparisons between digital assets, particularly for traders and investors relying on accurate data.