Ripple’s reliance on the XRP token continues to stir debate within the crypto space, reigniting questions about whether the asset serves a functional role beyond speculative trading. On October 30, 2025, the discussion resurfaced when crypto analyst Scott Melker posed a direct challenge to XRP’s current use case. His question wasn’t about Ripple as a company, but about the utility of XRP itself — a distinction that has long been at the heart of the controversy.
Melker asked on social media: “What is the current pitch for XRP? The token, not Ripple the company.” Highlighting that Western Union chose Solana for stablecoin transfers and SWIFT opted for Ethereum’s Linea network, Melker questioned whether XRP still has a place in the rapidly evolving payments ecosystem. “Stablecoins seem to have taken over for payments. So what unique purpose does XRP serve?” he added, emphasizing that he was seeking genuine answers, not stirring controversy.
His post received widespread attention, garnering over 291,000 views in a single day, and sparked a flurry of responses from the XRP community. Defenders of the token argued that comparing XRP to stablecoins misses the point. According to these proponents, XRP isn’t intended to compete with fiat-backed assets like USDC or USDT. Rather, they say, it functions as a bridge asset — facilitating real-time liquidity between various currencies, assets, and networks.
One account summarized this viewpoint succinctly: “Stablecoins store value within closed systems. XRP enables movement across those systems.” Advocates claim the token provides key infrastructure for settlement and foreign exchange conversion, particularly in cross-border financial operations involving central banks, corporations, and other institutions.
Ripple’s recent partnerships and developments — such as integrations with GTreasury, RLUSD, and Evernorth — are often cited as evidence that XRP is becoming a central layer in a global liquidity network. In this vision, XRP is positioned not as a replacement for traditional money but as a neutral intermediary connecting digital and fiat currencies across isolated ecosystems.
But Melker wasn’t satisfied with theoretical models or future projections. “Why does it have to be XRP?” he asked. “Stablecoins can do the same job without the risk of volatility.” He stressed the importance of actual, present-day use, not promises of what XRP might achieve years down the line.
Former CoinRoutes chairman Dave Weisberger entered the conversation with a more critical perspective. He suggested that much of XRP’s perceived value comes from community hype rather than proven utility. “People buy XRP like they buy Dogecoin or Trump Coin — because it’s a meme. It’s never been about what it does.”
Weisberger argued that Ripple’s use of XRP is less about external adoption and more about internal necessity. According to him, Ripple holds large quantities of XRP on its balance sheet, using the asset to support its liquidity operations and financial stability. “XRP doesn’t need to skyrocket in price, but a crash would hurt Ripple’s ability to function,” he warned.
This raises an uncomfortable conclusion for some: that Ripple’s success is closely tied to the token’s price, regardless of broader market adoption. If XRP loses value, Ripple’s strategic leverage could weaken. This challenges the long-standing narrative that Ripple and XRP are separate entities with distinct purposes.
The debate underscores a deeper issue in the crypto ecosystem: the gap between utility and speculation. While XRP’s supporters emphasize its technological potential as a bridge for global finance, critics argue that its primary function remains fueling investor hopes and Ripple’s internal liquidity.
Furthermore, despite Ripple’s continued marketing of XRP as a cornerstone for institutional payments, real-world adoption remains limited compared to the explosive growth of stablecoins. Projects like Circle’s USDC and Tether’s USDT are now central to DeFi, remittances, and crypto trading, thanks to their price stability and widespread integration.
In contrast, XRP’s volatility and regulatory challenges — including its extended legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — have complicated its path to becoming a mainstream financial instrument. Even with partial legal victories, doubts persist about whether financial institutions are willing to adopt a volatile token for critical operations.
Some analysts suggest XRP could still find a niche in corridors underserved by stablecoins. In markets with limited access to banking infrastructure or where currency volatility is high, XRP’s ability to facilitate fast, low-cost cross-border transactions might provide unique value. However, these use cases remain largely speculative or in pilot stages.
Others argue that Ripple’s real strength lies not in XRP itself, but in the software and infrastructure it has built around it. RippleNet and its On-Demand Liquidity product offer real utility, but critics say these services could theoretically function with other assets, reducing XRP’s indispensability.
Looking ahead, Ripple may need to demonstrate more definitive, large-scale adoption of XRP in live financial systems to justify its continued emphasis on the token. Without clear, observable traction, the argument that XRP is essential to the future of finance remains open to skepticism.
Additionally, the broader token economy is shifting. As programmable stablecoins become more advanced and central banks explore digital currencies (CBDCs), the competitive landscape is tightening. Ripple’s vision of XRP as a universal liquidity solution must contend with innovations from both the private and public sectors.
Ultimately, the debate highlights a fundamental tension in crypto: is the value of a token driven by hype and market cap, or by actual utility and adoption? For XRP, the answer may still be evolving — but for now, its relevance seems to be as much about price performance as it is about practical use.