Ripple CTO Emeritus Responds to Claims XRP Ledger Was Always Centralized

TLDR

Table of Contents

Ripple’s David Schwartz addressed the missing XRP Ledger history starting at Ledger 32,570.
Schwartz said a bug caused the permanent loss of the first 32,569 XRP Ledger records.
XRP’s former CTO said Bitcoin’s 2010 rollback showed more centralization than XRP.
Schwartz argued that no coordinated changes in XRP’s case reflected decentralized decision-making.

A renewed debate over the decentralization of the XRP Ledger has surfaced as critics point to its missing early records. The controversy centers on the fact that the ledger’s history begins at Ledger 32,570, not Ledger 1. Ripple’s CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has responded to these claims, defending the project’s origins and comparing XRP’s handling of the issue to key moments in Bitcoin’s early development history.

Missing Ledger History Sparks Renewed Debate

The early history of the XRP Ledger (XRPL) has been a topic of debate for years. Over the weekend, it resurfaced after Bitcoin supporter Bram Kanstein pointed out that the XRPL’s recorded history starts at Ledger 32,570 rather than Ledger 1.

Kanstein called this missing data proof of XRP’s centralized origin. He argued that this omission weakened XRP’s claims of decentralization, especially when compared to other blockchain projects like Bitcoin.

XRP's 32,750th block "may be thought of as the genesis".
Except it is not.
The XRP Genesis reset is a prime example of the centralized nature of "CrYpTO". https://t.co/VZhXoQlVUX pic.twitter.com/0outf4crGI
— Bram Kanstein (@bramk) February 9, 2026

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz responded directly. He said the missing ledgers were due to a bug in early server software, not an attempt to erase or control data. He emphasized that this was not an example of central planning or manipulation.

The Ledger Bug and Ledger 32,570

The XRPL was launched in June 2012. According to Schwartz, a software issue caused the headers for the first week’s ledgers to be saved incorrectly. Because of this, Ledgers 1 through 32,569 were lost permanently.

He said, “The state of the ledger was preserved and carried forward,” meaning all data after Ledger 32,570 is verifiable and accurate. This ledger became the starting point for public history servers.

Schwartz clarified that the development team did not attempt to recreate or fake the missing data. Instead, they continued with what was available. This, he said, demonstrated a decision not to interfere, which he views as decentralized behavior.

Schwartz Compares XRP and Bitcoin Decisions

Schwartz compared XRP’s decision not to act with Bitcoin’s response to early bugs. He said, “Bitcoin had at least two incidents that showed way more centralization than this incident did.”

He pointed to the 2010 value overflow bug in Bitcoin as an example. In that case, a transaction created 184 billion BTC by mistake. The Bitcoin community responded by rolling back the blockchain to fix it.

Schwartz highlighted that such coordinated rollbacks show that early Bitcoin also relied on human decision-making. He argued that by contrast, XRP’s developers made no such coordinated decision to alter history, choosing instead to move forward without change.

Centralization Claims Remain Controversial

Despite Schwartz’s statements, XRP’s early history remains a concern for critics. They argue that the loss of initial records and Ripple’s known influence over XRP supply raise questions.

Ripple has repeatedly said it does not control the XRPL and that the network runs independently. Schwartz, who was one of the original architects of the ledger, maintains that the handling of the bug supports that claim.

He said that no effort was made to hide the error. Instead, the team accepted the flaw and let the network continue. For Schwartz, this is evidence of decentralized behavior rather than centralized control.

As blockchain communities continue to debate what defines decentralization, XRP’s early missing history will likely remain a point of discussion.