Instead, the company is staying private. This choice says more about the uneasy fit between crypto firms and public markets than about Ripple’s finances.
After years of litigation, Ripple emerged vindicated. By standard metrics, this was when a startup would capitalize, reward backers, tap capital markets, and become public.
But Ripple declined. This month, the company confirmed it has “no plan, no timeline” for an IPO. President Monica Long stressed Ripple has about $500 million in funding and a private valuation near $40 billion. She believes Ripple doesn’t need public markets to grow.
This choice sets Ripple apart from other crypto firms that went public and paid the price.
Ripple’s choice to stay private avoids this. Remaining off public markets shields it from earnings volatility and pressure from equity investors unfamiliar with crypto.
The quarterly treadmill is brutal even for established firms. Crypto companies, with volatile revenues and regulatory exposure, are especially at risk.
Ripple also holds a massive amount of XRP and relies heavily on its ecosystem. A public listing could create tension between token holders and equity investors, as seen elsewhere.
Equity holders might push Ripple to monetize its XRP reserves or alter its value proposition. Staying private preserves flexibility and shields token management from public scrutiny.
Regulatory uncertainty remains. Ripple won against the SEC, but the broader regulatory battle continues. The SEC pursues other crypto cases, and Congress lacks unified legislation. Going public could mean more disclosure and regulatory scrutiny. Staying private gives Ripple room to maneuver.
Most importantly, Ripple doesn’t need the money. A $500 million raise at a $40 billion valuation means there will be no liquidity crunch. Private capital enables Ripple to scale without involving public investors or altering its internal governance.
Ripple’s hesitation exposes an uncomfortable truth: public markets aren’t built for crypto-native companies. Traditional investors seek predictable earnings, stable margins, and regulatory clarity. Crypto firms ride volatile cycles, employ complex tokenomics, and operate in shifting legal zones.
This mismatch matters. Public markets penalize companies when trading drops or regulation looms, even if core growth stays strong. Crypto firms aren’t rewarded for fundamentals like tech companies. Instead, they react to market sentiment and token prices.
This means that a company’s core business, whether it involves enterprise blockchain services, custody infrastructure, or cross-border payments, can be overshadowed by token volatility or policy changes. In a private context, those risks are easier to manage. In a public context, they are often magnified or misunderstood.
Expectations from token holders add complexity. Crypto users often act like shareholders without owning equity. They demand updates, align with projects, and object to perceived misalignment.
Going public could force Ripple to balance between equity markets and token communities, a rare feat that few companies have successfully accomplished.
Ripple’s move is a deliberate delay, not retreat. If it goes public, the landscape must change: clearer regulations, more informed investors, and a stable macro environment. Until then, staying private lets Ripple control its direction.
The industry takeaway is clear: public listings aren’t guaranteed. Crypto firms must weigh timing, governance, and brand. With unconventional metrics and active communities, the bar for going public is higher.
Ripple beat the SEC. But the fight for mainstream legitimacy and scaling remains. Dodging Wall Street, for now, may prove the smarter move.
