波紋CTO David Schwartz最近確認，Ripple欠XRP的義務

輸入：波紋CTO David Schwartz最近確認，Ripple欠XRP的義務，將這一想法歸咎於XRP安全性虛假陳述。

Ripple CTO David Schwartz recently confirmed that the company owes no obligation to hold XRP, blaming this idea on those misrepresenting XRP security.

Ripple CTO CTO David Schwartz最近確認，該公司沒有責任持有XRP的義務，將這一想法歸咎於那些虛假的XRP安全性。

His comments came in response to an ongoing discussion about Ripple’s role in XRP’s distribution and its responsibilities toward token holders. For context, Bitcoin advocate and XRP critic, Pierre Rochard, argued that Ripple has no obligation to ensure XRP holders benefit from its actions. He asserted that the company is free to sell its large XRP holdings, even if it negatively impacts retail investors. According to him, this is what makes XRP a non-security.

他的評論是為了回應有關Ripple在XRP分銷中的作用及其對令牌持有人的責任的持續討論。對於上下文，比特幣倡導者和XRP評論家皮埃爾·羅沙德（Pierre Rochard）認為，波紋沒有義務確保XRP持有人從其行動中受益。他斷言該公司可以自由出售其大型XRP控股，即使對零售投資者產生負面影響。據他說，這就是使XRP成為非安全性的原因。

Ripple Has No Obligation to HODL Its XRP Bag

Ripple沒有義務hodl的XRP袋

Interestingly, Schwartz agreed, emphasizing that Ripple, like any other business, operates in its own best interest. He compared XRP ownership to possessing early artwork from an emerging artist.

有趣的是，施瓦茨同意，強調，像其他任何業務一樣，Ripple以其自身的最大利益運作。他將XRP所有權與擁有新興藝術家的早期藝術品進行了比較。

While investors might hope the artist continues to create value that benefits their holdings, there is no obligation for them to do so. He stressed that neither Ripple nor any company should be expected to act against its own interests to serve investors.

儘管投資者可能希望藝術家繼續創造有利於其持股的價值，但他們沒有義務這樣做。他強調，不應期望波紋和任何公司都不得違背自己的利益行事，以服務投資者。

Amid this disclosure, the Ripple CTO also pointed out that Ripple has been an established player in the industry for nearly 14 years. The company holds more XRP than it could feasibly liquidate in a short timeframe. Notably, this alleviates fears that it could dump all its holdings in the short-term.

在這一披露中，Ripple CTO還指出，Ripple已成為該行業的一名成熟參與者已有近14年了。該公司持有的XRP超出了在短時間內可以清算的可行清算。值得注意的是，這減輕了人們擔心它會在短期內拋棄其所有股份。

Also, Schwartz dismissed the idea that Ripple could be the only major crypto company to succeed, likening the notion to expecting Google to be the sole winner in the internet industry.

另外，施瓦茨（Schwartz）駁斥了Ripple可能是唯一成功的加密公司的想法，將其比作期望Google成為互聯網行業唯一贏家的想法。

Notably, his comments echo Ripple’s defense in its ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which began in December 2020. For context, the SEC alleged that Ripple had an obligation to ensure XRP holders observed gains on their holdings, a theory that the firm has rebuffed.

值得注意的是，他的評論在與美國證券交易委員會（SEC）的持續法律鬥爭中呼應了辯護，該委員會始於2020年12月。在上下文中，SEC指控Ripple有義務確保XRP持有人在其持股中觀察到收益，這一理論認為該公司已被拒絕。

XRP Not a Security

XRP不是安全性

Following Schwartz’s latest remarks, a prominent Ripple critic known as “ScamDaddy” shared a screenshot of the conversation, questioning why anyone would be surprised by Ripple prioritizing its business goals, implying that this has always been clear.

在施瓦茨（Schwartz）的最新講話之後，一位著名的連鎖批評家被稱為“ scamdaddy”，分享了對話的屏幕截圖，質疑為什麼有人會因為優先考慮其業務目標而感到驚訝，這意味著這始終很明確。

Schwartz responded by suggesting that most of the confusion about Ripple’s role in XRP’s ecosystem stems from those pushing the narrative that XRP is a security. He implied that this group has deliberately misrepresented the relationship between Ripple and XRP.

施瓦茨（Schwartz）提出了關於波紋在XRP生態系統中的作用的大部分混亂，這是因為那些推動XRP是安全性的敘述的人。他暗示，這個群體故意歪曲了Ripple和XRP之間的關係。

“It’s mostly the ‘XRP is a security’ crowd that deliberately created confusion about the relationship between Ripple and XRP,” the Ripple executive said in a post on X.

Ripple主管在X上的一篇文章中說：“主要是'XRP是一個安全'人群，故意對Ripple和XRP之間的關係感到困惑。”

Notably, further discussion arose when XRPL validator Vet pointed out that individuals who believe Ripple owes XRP holders an obligation to HODL are also those claiming that Ripple was responsible for issuing XRP.

值得注意的是，當XRPL驗證者獸醫指出，那些相信Ripple欠XRP持有人的個人對HODL的義務也是那些聲稱Ripple負責發行XRP的人的義務時，就進行了進一步的討論。

In response, “ScamDaddy” acknowledged that the term “issued” is widely debated but maintained that Ripple’s founders created both the XRP Ledger and the token, later distributing it.

作為回應，“ Scamdaddy”承認“發行”一詞是廣泛爭議的，但堅持認為Ripple的創始人既創建了XRP Ledger和Token，又創建了它，後來又分發了它。

However, Vet countered this, clarifying that the XRP Ledger existed before Ripple as a company. He acknowledged that there was an overlap between the individuals who developed the technology and those who later established Ripple, but he stressed that the two entities were not synonymous.

但是，獸醫對此表示反對，澄清了XRP Ledger在Ripple作為公司之前存在。他承認，開發該技術的個人與後來建立波紋的人之間存在重疊，但他強調這兩個實體不是同義詞。