TL;DR
- David Schwartz revived XRP staking debate after asking whether holders want to be their own bank or let someone else pay them.
- The XRP Ledger does not currently support native staking because it uses Proof of Association rather than proof of stake.
- Native staking would need a reward source and distribution method, but XRPL fees are currently burned, while yield products remain external through various exchanges and DeFi-linked platforms today.
David Schwartz, Ripple’s CTO Emeritus, has reignited XRP’s staking debate by turning a familiar crypto promise into an uncomfortable banking comparison. The discussion surfaced after an X user revisited a 2025 XRP Apex exchange about whether XRP holders could stake directly on the XRP Ledger and earn yield from network transaction fees. Schwartz answered with a pointed choice: be your own bank, or let someone else pay you to be theirs. The line landed because XRP staking challenges the ledger’s self-custody premise, not just its technical roadmap.
Do you want to be your own bank or do you want someone else to pay you to be their bank?
— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) June 22, 2026
The issue is that the XRP Ledger does not currently support native staking. Unlike proof-of-stake systems such as Ethereum, XRPL relies on a consensus model described as Proof of Association, where validators help maintain stability without being paid protocol rewards. That design prioritizes trust, efficiency and predictable settlement over tokenholder yield. So the basic question becomes surprisingly awkward: if XRP holders want passive income, someone must first define where the yield comes from, since transaction fees are not currently distributed to validators or stakers.
Native Yield Runs Into XRPL’s Fee Design
Native XRP staking would require two missing pieces: a reward source and a distribution mechanism. At present, XRPL transaction fees are burned, an intentional design choice meant to support deflationary supply pressure and keep the network efficient. Redirecting those fees toward staking would therefore change more than user experience; it would touch monetary design, validator incentives and the philosophy behind XRPL’s low-cost operation. That is why staking sounds simple but collides with core ledger architecture, especially when fees were never structured as validator revenue.
The market is still experimenting around the edges. Yield programs tied to XRP already exist through exchanges and DeFi-linked venues such as Uphold, Flare, Doppler Finance and Axelar, showing that users are seeking return without waiting for protocol-native staking. But those products differ from direct XRPL staking because they introduce external platforms, additional risk and varying custody assumptions. Schwartz’s bank analogy captured that tension neatly. For holders, the staking debate is really about control versus yield, and for XRPL, the unresolved question is whether chasing passive income would strengthen the ecosystem or dilute the design choices that made it different in the first place, as community expectations keep shifting around income products and network identity in 2026 now.
