Ripple首席技術官David Schwartz在投資者稱其為“ Vaporware Ponzi”之後，在激烈的在線辯論中為XRP辯護。

討論源於對在美國潛在戰略儲備中納入XRP的擔憂。

A heated online debate unfolded between Ripple CTO David Schwartz and an investor, Jonnie King, after the latter called XRP a “vaporware ponzi” in an opinion piece. The discussion arose from concerns over the inclusion of XRP in the U.S potential strategic reserves.

Ripple首席技術官David Schwartz和投資者Jonnie King之間進行了激烈的在線辯論。討論源於對在美國潛在戰略儲備中納入XRP的擔憂。

The debate, which took place on X (formerly Twitter), stemmed from a recent article in TheStreet discussing the possibility of U.S. strategic reserves holding cryptocurrencies. In his article, King expressed skepticism over XRP’s suitability for such an inclusion.

這場辯論是在X（以前是Twitter）上進行的，源於TheStreet上最近的一篇文章，討論了美國戰略儲備的可能性。金在他的文章中對XRP對這種包容性的適用性表示懷疑。

King argued that XRP was still under centralized control, in contrast to Bitcoin (BTC), which was designed to be decentralized from the outset. He asserted that Ripple’s influence over XRP’s supply made it unfit for the U.S. strategic reserve.

金認為，與比特幣（BTC）相比，XRP仍處於集中控制之下，比特幣（BTC）從一開始就被分散。他斷言，Ripple對XRP供應的影響使美國戰略儲備不適合。

“They have 50% of the supply locked in an escrow system and release large amounts of tokens monthly to be sold, allowing them to manipulate the price and make revenue,” King said.

金說：“他們有50％的供應量鎖定在託管系統中，並每月釋放大量令牌，使他們可以操縱價格並賺取收入。”

He also alleged that Ripple could alter the release schedule of escrowed tokens at any time, giving it undue influence over market dynamics.

他還聲稱，波紋可以隨時改變託管令牌的發佈時間表，從而對市場動態產生不當的影響。

Moreover, King pointed to Ripple’s political involvement, noting that Ripple’s executive Chairman, Chris Larsen, donated to Kamala Harris’s campaign. Following Donald Trump’s victory, the company itself contributed to Trump’s inauguration.

此外，金指出了Ripple的政治參與，並指出Ripple的執行董事長Chris Larsen向Kamala Harris的競選捐款。在唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的勝利之後，該公司本身為特朗普的就職典禮做出了貢獻。

Schwartz challenged King to discuss XRP’s actual technology instead of its market mechanics or corporate governance. He asked King to highlight any aspect of XRPL that he found interesting, steering the conversation away from the popular FUD narrative about XRP.

施瓦茨（Schwartz）挑戰金，討論XRP的實際技術，而不是其市場機製或公司治理。他要求金突出他發現有趣的XRPL的任何方面，將談話從關於XRP的流行敘述中轉移出來。

“I’d rather discuss any aspect of the XRP Ledger’s technology that interests you,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz說：“我寧願討論XRP分類帳的任何方面對您感興趣的技術。”

However, King dismissed the request, arguing that XRP’s technology was irrelevant if Ripple maintained control over the asset. He went on to repeat his statements about pre-mined tokens, missing ledger entries, and a lack of smart contract capabilities, calling XRPL “a highly centralized ledger with missing entries.”

但是，金駁回了該請求，認為如果波紋保持對資產的控制權，XRP的技術是無關緊要的。他繼續重複有關預先開采的令牌，缺少賬本的條目以及缺乏智能合同功能的陳述，稱XRPL為“一個高度集中的分類帳，缺少參賽作品”。

Schwartz countered by questioning whether King understood XRPL’s consensus model, decentralized exchange (DEX), and how it prevents network reorganizations. He also pointed out contradictions in King’s arguments, noting that XRP was labeled “vaporware” and “outdated tech from 2012” in the same discussion.

施瓦茲（Schwartz）通過質疑金是否理解XRPL的共識模型，分散交流（DEX）以及如何防止網絡重組來反駁。他還指出了金的論點中的矛盾，並指出XRP在同一討論中被標記為“蒸發器軟件”和“ 2012年過時的技術”。

“It’s interesting that you call the world’s third-largest blockchain technology ‘vaporware’ and claim it’s ‘outdated tech from 2012’ in the same comment,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz說：“有趣的是，您將世界第三大區塊鏈技術稱為“蒸氣軟件”，並在同一評論中聲稱它是“ 2012年過時的技術”。”

Centralization vs. Decentralization

集中化與權力下放

King went on to insist that XRP’s design made it inferior to Bitcoin. He claimed that its consensus mechanism was based on centralized trust and could be compromised if bad actors colluded within the Unique Node List (UNL).

金繼續堅持認為XRP的設計使其不如比特幣。他聲稱其共識機制是基於集中信任的，如果不良演員在唯一的節點列表中串通（UNL），可能會受到損害。

“Anyone can become a validator in Bitcoin’s PoW system, but in XRP’s system, only the 20 nodes decide who can participate in validation,” King said.

金說：“任何人都可以成為比特幣POW系統的驗證者，但是在XRP的系統中，只有20個節點決定誰可以參與驗證。”

He contrasted this with Bitcoin’s proof-of-work model, which allows anyone to become a validator. Schwartz pushed back, emphasizing that XRPL’s features, such as its DEX and non-native asset support, provided functionality that other blockchains lacked.

他將其與比特幣的工作證明模型進行了對比，該模型使任何人都可以成為驗證者。 Schwartz向後推，強調XRPL的功能（例如其DEX和非本地資產支持）提供了其他區塊鏈缺乏的功能。

However, King dismissed the XRPL DEX as “trust-based” and lacking programmability.

但是，金將XRPL DEX視為“基於信任的”，缺乏可編程性。

No matter how much Schwartz tried to shift the focus to XRPL’s tech, King held firm that governance and control problems were more important than any tech XRP might offer.

不管施瓦茨（Schwartz）試圖將重點轉移到XRPL的技術方面，金（King）堅持認為，治理和控制問題比任何技術XRP更重要。

The debate highlights the gap between XRP supporters and critics, including Bitcoin enthusiasts. While XRP fans believe the token deserves inclusion in the U.S. strategic reserve, Bitcoin purists (maxis) believe only BTC qualifies for such an initiative.

辯論突出了XRP支持者和評論家（包括比特幣愛好者）之間的差距。儘管XRP粉絲認為令牌值得包含在美國戰略儲備中，但比特幣純粹主義者（Maxis）認為，BTC只有資格獲得這樣的計劃。