XRP Faces Scrutiny After Ripple Co-Founder Moves Tokens

XRP, the digital asset closely associated with Ripple, has recently faced heated criticism following a substantial token transfer by a company co-founder. XRP community members quickly responded after an estimated $175 million worth of XRP was moved to multiple exchanges, raising new questions around insider activity during market highs.

Ripple’s co-founder Chris Larsen reportedly initiated a series of large transfers totaling around 50 million XRP. These transactions were quickly flagged by blockchain analysts due to their timing: they occurred just as XRP was nearing a local peak in value. Community reactions were swift, with many labeling the activity as a potential “dump,” a term often used when large holders liquidate significant amounts of tokens at high prices.

On-chain data revealed that Larsen’s XRP was sent to multiple major cryptocurrency exchanges, including familiar names within the crypto trading ecosystem. This strategic movement of a substantial volume of tokens the moment XRP was observing elevated market activity drew immediate suspicion. Critics argue that such actions can undermine market confidence and create unnecessary volatility, especially when coming from insiders historically involved in Ripple’s development.

Adding fuel to the fire, blockchain tracking accounts reported that the 50 million XRP had been split between several wallets and gradually dispersed to destinations believed to be exchange-linked. The transactions commenced shortly before XRP saw a notable dip, which further stoked fears of deliberate timing to capitalize on market momentum.

Chris Larsen, recognized as one of the early creators of Ripple and a longstanding holder of XRP, has not yet issued a public response. While there’s no concrete evidence proving malicious intent, token holders expressed concern over the lack of transparency and coordination. Several members of the XRP community called for greater accountability, suggesting that large moves like this should be disclosed proactively to mitigate panic and rumors.

XRP’s recent market performance has been strong, with significant interest returning amid broader altcoin momentum. However, large-scale token movements from early stakeholders often trigger steep debates within digital asset communities. Traders worry about the impact such actions might have on liquidity and investor trust. Some even pointed to similar past events that caused short-term selloffs, warning that history could repeat itself if transparency doesn’t improve.

Concerns about token dumping are not new in the cryptocurrency space. Projects with centralized token distributions often face scrutiny whenever founders or affiliated individuals move large amounts. This recent XRP incident has reignited such conversations, especially among retail investors eager to see more regulatory oversight or internal protocols governing insider transactions.

It’s important to note that XRP operates with unique tokenomics due to its close ties to Ripple Labs and its leadership structure. The asset’s founding allocation gave large portions of XRP to early team members, many of whom still hold significant quantities. When these figures make moves, markets tend to react strongly due to the implied influence on supply and demand dynamics.

Some analysts have cautioned investors to remain calm and examine verified blockchain records before jumping to conclusions. Still, the timing and scale of this transfer — coinciding with XRP’s local highs — has led many to question whether such events should have governance measures in place. Calls for better oversight, wallet labeling, and voluntary disclosure practices have grown louder in response.

Related: XRP Price: $12M Max Pain for Bears

While the XRP token still shows resilience in trading volume and community engagement, reputational challenges like these highlight the complex balancing act between decentralization and leadership accountability. For XRP to maintain long-term confidence, managing perceptions around fairness and market integrity could prove just as vital as technological development or legal clarity.