Built in 2012, long before the rise of modern DeFi, it embraced a minimalist design of fast settlement, deterministic consensus, and no economic incentives for validators.
That architecture helped XRPL grow into a trusted payments network, but it also left it structurally different from the yield-driven systems that now dominate the digital asset economy.
XRPL’s consensus model, known as Proof of Association (PoA), relies on a Unique Node List (UNL) of trusted validators.
The system has no block rewards, no slashing, and no competition among validators for block production. Here, network fees are anti-spam tools and not revenue sources.
That structure once defined XRPL’s strength, but today it is also becoming its constraint. DeFi ecosystems thrive on yield mechanisms, and capital tends to flow toward chains that reward participation.
According to him:
“[Native staking] would change how value flows through the XRPL network in ways we’d need to think through carefully. So, talking about the idea for XRP helps us understand what could evolve and what should stay the same.”
In walking through what staking would require, Akinyele laid out the unavoidable implications.
First, XRPL would need a source of rewards, which it currently lacks. Second, it would need a way to distribute those rewards without compromising decentralization.
According to him, both requirements would reshape XRPL’s carefully balanced incentive model.
He explained that introducing rewards would create tensions that XRPL deliberately avoids. Validators would suddenly have financial motives that conflict with the network’s principle of neutrality.
Even more critically, financial incentives tend to drive operators to optimize for cost, clustering validators in the same cloud region or hardware configuration. That would undermine XRPL’s distributed trust model and weaken the properties that have preserved its resilience for more than a decade.
Akinyele noted:
“Once you add incentives, I agree operators start optimizing for cost: cheaper hardware, the same cloud region, centralized setups. That’s exactly the centralizing force the XRPL avoids by not using economic rewards to motivate validator behavior.”
At the same time, fee redistribution, a standard tool in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) systems, would invite Sybil attacks if applied broadly or political pressure if limited to UNL validators.
However, he made it clear that while both are technically interesting, they are far from viable.
According to him, they introduce significant risk for benefits that are largely theoretical. He added that XRPL does not currently suffer from the performance bottlenecks those systems are intended to solve.
If staking remains incompatible with XRPL’s core architecture, the blockchain network users’ demand for yield is not.
Through Midas, XRP holders can stake their assets, receive mXRP, and deploy it across DeFi protocols for up to 8% annualized returns.
Moreover, listing mXRP on Lista’s markets has allowed holders to layer yields by using the token as collateral in liquidity pools, lending markets, and reward programs.
These numbers show that the market is building the incentives that XRPL avoids, and it is doing so in systems that sit just outside the core ledger.
This divergence underscores XRPL’s central dilemma. The chain’s architecture wasn’t built for the incentive structures that drive DeFi participation.
Yet, its users increasingly seek those opportunities and are finding them in ecosystems that wrap or extend XRP rather than rely on the ledger itself.
The broader significance of the staking thought experiment is not about whether XRPL should adopt staking. It is about what these discussions reveal about XRP’s evolving economic role.
Reliable on-chain yield would likely attract new classes of investors and increase capital retention within the ecosystem.
As a result, liquidity would deepen and XRP’s role as collateral could expand. At the same time, the digital asset would begin to behave more like other productive tokens in the DeFi landscape.
However, pursuing such a model risks undermining the neutrality and predictability that have historically defined XRP.
Moreover, it could blur the line between XRP as a liquidity instrument and XRP as a yield-bearing asset, creating new volatility patterns and governance pressures.
The alternative path of preserving XRPL’s lean and incentive-free architecture would keep XRP aligned with its original purpose. It would remain a highly efficient bridge currency and settlement tool, with its value anchored in utility rather than rewards.
In this case, its growth might be slower, but stability would remain a core feature.
In this sense, the staking debate is less about staking itself and more about defining what XRP should be in its next decade.
As DeFi grows, programmability efforts progress, and cross-chain integrations expand, the question is whether XRPL can evolve just enough to remain competitive without losing the qualities that made it resilient in the first place.
That balance may ultimately determine not just the future of XRPL, but the economic future of XRP itself.
