Talk:XRP Ledger

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

I think this article could use an update. XRP (the crypto currency) automatically redirects to Ripple (the company). Its a bit like saying Microsoft and Windows are the same thing. But if Microsoft went bankrupt, Windows the software will continue to operate just fine. XRPs are sold and transfered in the secondary marked, and it has nothing to do with Ripple any more. Further, XRP is not on trial. Ripple executives are on trial for selling XRP, which is a different matter. 79.161.216.232 (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Tag and name

I removed a lot of low-quality sources. This article is left with almost no coverage, tempted to nominate it for WP:AFD and thought would give a little time to other editors to add content. Might also qualify for a merge into Ripple Labs. FYI, only add mainstream WP:RS like wsj, nyt, bloomberg, ft.com. Do not add any forbes contributor sources, low-quality fintech sources, blockchain sources (coindesk and binance, etc). Seems that this so-called blockchain (if it is even one) is not notable aside from the company that operates it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of this source — Arslanian, Henri (2022). The Book of Crypto: The Complete Guide to Understanding Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets. Springer Nature. p. 112. ISBN 978-3-030-97951-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) — copied from the article Decentralized finance? Springer is generally a reputable publisher. BD2412 T 21:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Does this book refer to "XRP Ledger"? Clearly the Ripple company is notable, but is this (maybe) blockchain notable? Does the book go in to depth about it? The issue here is the three remaining sources we seem to have, none of them refer to this ledger right? Do any of them even refer to this so-called ledger (or blockchain)? Or are they just referring to someone getting some XRP? The latter could all be dealt with on the Ripple article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that this book actually draws the distinction between the platform and the company very nicely. The first sentence says "XRP is a digital asset built for payments and is the native digital asset on the XRP Ledger—an open-source, permissionless and decentralized blockchain technology"; the opening paragraph goes on to say that it is "important to understand the difference between XRP, Ripple, and RippleNet, which is on top of the distributed ledger database called XRP Ledger" and that "Whilst RippleNet is run by a company called Ripple, XRP Ledger is open source". Interestingly, the next page and a half goes on to describe the functioning of XRP Ledger in some detail without mentioning "Ripple" again at all. BD2412 T 23:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Might be good to add that to this article. As of now the article is not distinctive enough from the Ripple corp article. One book is not enough to justify notability, but it is a start. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I note that "XRP Ledger" also gets a pretty good number of hits in titles of articles on Google Scholar. BD2412 T 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: As you have suggested that it would be good to add the quoted material to the article, but appear to object to adding it as a quote, please suggest the wording that you think would be appropriate for executing your suggestion. Thanks. BD2412 T 16:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, when we add quoted text generally we need to state who is making the claim. In this case the claim is also promotional, so it would need to be a notable person making the claim (eg if the person quoted has their own wikipedia page and is an expert in the subject). This article subject (and topic in general) has problems with WP:PROMO so be aware of that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

How is the statement that XRP, Ripple, and RippleNet are different concepts "promotional" here? BD2412 T 17:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its excessively detailed information that is WP:PUFFERY about a product from Ripple (corp) (that has a token that it sells called XRP which funds its operations) and it operates a supposed non-notable network called RippleNet (that probably nobody uses). This is exactly the type of cryptocurrency promotion we are talking about. We use WP:RS to determine if something is WP:DUE for inclusion, chapters in a book dont really suffice that. We need to see that wsj or fortune.com care about this, and they dont seem to. This is the reason I put a notability tag on the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been an administrator on this site for nearly twenty years, and have had a hand in drafting a substantial portion of the policies of this site (including notability policies). This statement does not cohere with the intent of what we wrote in those policies. Critically, SNGs supplement, but have never been intended to supplant, the GNG; within the context of the GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Book chapters from generally reliable publishers (such as Springer) have always counted towards fulfilling this requirement, and continue to do so absent community consensus to the contrary. BD2412 T 19:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Why does this XRP Ledger article even exist? Is it notable in your eyes? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In order to ensure an objective evaluation, I have asked ChatGPT, "is XRP Ledger notable as a topic distinct from the company, Ripple Labs, by Wikipedia standards? Why or why not?" It's conclusion, after listing a dozen bullet points making the case, is:

The XRP Ledger meets Wikipedia’s notability standards as a topic distinct from Ripple Labs. Its independent technological innovation, historical significance, and coverage in reliable sources make it a notable subject in its own right. However, to maintain this distinction in a Wikipedia article, the focus should be on the ledger’s technical aspects, decentralized nature, and broader applications, with careful attention to neutral and independent sources.

Of course, ChatGPT's evaluation of anything is something of a novelty, but it correctly notes on further inquiry that thousands of cryptocurrency platforms have been created, most having failed (lost all value and become defunct) within a few years, while the XRP Ledger has consistently been positioned within the top ten platforms since 2014 (after its launch in 2012), to today. The 2018 CNBC article cited in the article stated that it was the "third most-valuable cryptocurrency on the market"; a relatively recent Bloomberg News article (not yet cited in this article; see Kharif, Olga (September 12, 2024). "XRP Rises as Grayscale Offers Trust for 7th Biggest Crypto Token". Bloomberg News.), describes the XRP Ledger as "a distributed, peer-to-peer network created to facilitate cross-border financial transactions" and states that its token is "the seventh-largest digital asset". Notably, the Bloomberg News article does not mention Ripple at all. If you are unable to access the Bloomberg News article directly, it is available through the Wikipedia Library. BD2412 T 20:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting novelty, I havent seen it used yet to work on wikipedia projects. I dont know how to use wikipedia library, how do i search for that source in the library? Maybe that will be more of a thing as the years go along. My understanding (I could certainly be wrong) is that Ripple (corp) created Ripple (token) now referred to as XRP and that Ripple token is the token of this 'blockchain' that is a largely centralized network operated by Ripple (corp), and that Ripple (corp) also promotes a vaporware product that banks supposedly use for settlement (maybe called RippleNet). Is my understanding way off? Of course it is all my own WP:OR, but just what I have heard about it. Next, as to notability on these cryptocurrency articles we have been using mainstream sources to define notability and have been deleting these articles that lack mainstream coverage. I suppose if we can define (with some depth) that this RippleLedger is something notable as a standalone then we should expand it. Do you think it is sufficiently notable in that manner? I'll ping another couple crypto editors hoping they might contribute David Gerard (talk · contribs) and Grayfell (talk · contribs), do you two care to contribute? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be very clear: Please, please, please do not use ChatGPT to write content for articles (please review Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup for just a few of many reasons this is a bad idea). It is disappointing to me that an experienced Wikipedia editor would expect ChatGPT to provide anything resembling an objective evaluation.

The CNBC article is better than a lot of CNBC's crypto coverage, but it is not being fairly summarized in this article, which is a problem. The claim that XRP is the third-most whatever is supported by 'coinrankings.com' which is useless for our purposes. The CNBC article specifically says that the crypto's value is "on paper" which is a subtle but very important distinction to make for cryptos. That source spends significantly space discussing issues with the cryptocurrency, such as volatility, lack of decentralization, an unregistered security lawsuit, etc. To only cite this for a celebrity endorsement and an unattributed claim of value is pretty sloppy. This gives the impression the article was written WP:BACKWARDS. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I asked ChatGPT as a lark, and qualified it as a novelty. No need to make it more than that. As for the sources, I think we would all be better served looking at Google Scholar sources. A number of sources (the Bloomberg News article is just an example) note the market position of XRP, but the scholarly sources address the significance of the platform as a model of distribution of value. Please feel free, of course, to expand the coverage that can be derived from the CNBC article. There are quite a few CNBC articles addressing XRP, but I prefer to focus on the scholarly applications. BD2412 T 00:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Focusing on "the ledger’s technical aspects, decentralized nature, and broader applications" would be functionally whitewashing the article in favor of XRP's public relations. Per sources, it isn't particularly decentralized, and its broader applications are scarce and largely exist to pump the token instead of solving any real-world problems.

A recurring problem with Google Scholar in general is that it fails to differentiate between good sources and bad. This has been annoying for other topics, but for crypto it's a larger hurdle. The industry is clogged with niche industry pseudo-scholarship, blogs formatted as academic works, and now AI-generated slop which is neither written nor read by any actual human beings. Google treats it all pretty much the same, and at a glance, it appears that this specific topic is no better. By all means, look through Google Scholar, but sources will still need to be reliable, independent, and summarized neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the same issue I have with Google Scholar, is that is it is hard for me to decern which is a good source and which is iffy, and which is just some students who wrote a paper. So for notability in this difficult (in terms of promotional content) topic we have been trying to use only very mainstream business sources. I recognize the limitations of this approach, but it is what we have been doing for some years now and it works well (on average). That was the reason I mentioned ft.com and wsj.com, as they are two sources that seem to cover the notable cryptos, much like bloomberg and fortune.com. So if we seem some coverage at a few of those four, we can maybe think it could be notable. But if we are really limited at those mainstream sources, it becomes a challenge then to go off into the scholar weeds to analyze that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The question with respect to Google Scholar sources is whether the content was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Google Scholar is not a source in and of itself, but it is useful as a search tool for finding sources that can be further investigated. There are also a good number of investigative tools available through the Wikipedia Library, for which you qualify, and for which I would heartily recommend that you request access. BD2412 T 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We seem a bit to be going around in circles. I took a look at one of the academic sources you added (I think you did at least), for example this source is a Wuhan University collection. Why do we think that this is something that lends towards notability? When I read it, it seems to be a student (maybe a PHD student for all I know?) making a passing mention about XRPL when talking about Bitcoin. How do we get to notability for this article? For example in the Bitcoin books, we generally had an informal 'rule of thumb' that the author themself should have their own wikipedia article before we consider the book notable for the genre. Maybe that is a bit over-strict, but this genre has been problematic for years (with promotional edits). So back to the question at hand, how do we determine this source is even worth including on this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Such an "informal 'rule of thumb'" is not consistent with Wikipedia policy generally, which weighs sources by the reliability of the publisher or journal over the notability of the author. Wikipedia has literally millions of citations to sources for which the author is non-notable, and even being a recognized expert in one's field does not necessarily translate to notability for a Wikipedia article. That being said, however, Gary Gorton (who has an article, and is cited as an expert in a number of Wikipedia articles) has a section covering the XRP Ledger in Gorton, Gary (2024). The Digitalization of Money. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 94–96. ISBN 978-1-0364-0864-0.

Of relevance to this article, Gorton writes:

Ripple records transactions on a blockchain called the XRP ledger (XRPL). The consensus protocol, however, is not on XRPL. Participants have servers and the servers follow a consensus mechanism. After consensus is reached, the resulting block is recorded on the XRP ledger. So, Ripple is built on top of the XRP ledger. Ripple is interoperable with the current payments system because it operates through existing firms: banks and other financial firms. It does not replace existing financial infrastructure, but instead intends to become a part of it.

The XRP ledger (XRPL) is a decentralized public open-source blockchain. Ripple also has a native token called XRP that is blockchain-based. Ripple and XRPL are not the same entity. Ripple is a for-profit company. The XRPL is run by the XRP Ledger Foundation which is an independent nonprofit entity which works to support development and usage of the XRP Ledger.

....

The XRP ledger uses a consensus protocol mechanism to decide on what is added to the ledger. As with any other consensus mechanism the goal is to prevent double spending problems. The consensus mechanism has more centralization than other consensus mechanisms because multiple confirmations are not required so this makes XRP faster. If a majority of the specified nodes on a UNL agree on a certain state (set of transactions), then this state is added to the XRP ledger history. An XRP ledger transaction is confirmed within 5-7 seconds with a very small fee (a minimum fee of 0.00001 XRP about $0.0013927).

I think that the statements that "Ripple and XRPL are not the same entity", and the description of their distinctive characteristics, are significant (again, taken into context with the Bloomberg News article that discusses the XRP Ledger without making any mention of Ripple). BD2412 T 02:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an good source, and it meets my criteria for this genre (notable author, on topic piece, in depth coverage). Also noted that it appears my criteria and your criteria differ significantly on this genre. It is true that the suggestions I have put forth to help editors understand what will be ok (fortune.com, wsj.com, ft.com, bloomberg.com, etc) is just my attempt to guide editors, as this same discussion has been had many many times. I can say that many of the editors that I have seen regularly editing a broad swath of the crypto genre are following a much tighter interpretation of sourcing and I dont think that your suggestion to have looser sourcing standards on this article (because it is a large market cap crypto) or the entire crypto genre as a whole will be successful if the purpose is expediency. WP:NOT pretty much closes off that opening in my mind. From my perspective, it simply for a common sense reason, that this genre will spin off into full on promotional garbage if we start adding every bit of so called academic thought to every crypto article (note much of this academic thought is students from what I have read). Hey, but maybe I am totally wrong. Eventually we will need to have a more formalized standard for sourcing (say WP:CRYPTORS) as more editors come to this genre and I would welcome that. I think it would take an editor of your experience to take on that type of initiative. Or if your thinking is that crypto has grown up enough that we can loosen sourcing standards a bit, then we can look at that as well, but I just dont think so yet on that (maybe another 5 years and we might be ready, or maybe we are ready now??) Dunno. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of loosening sourcing standards; Wikipedia has a baseline for the standards for inclusion of a source. The only the only substantial deviation to that of which I am aware is WP:MEDRS, which exists due to the actual physical danger of following bad medical advice. I have actually proposed creation of WP:LAWRS for articles on legal topics, and as you can see, this was regrettably shot down quite thoroughly (though it did have its supporters). There is also a distinction between which sources can and should be used to prove the notability of a topic, and which sources can and should be used to support items of information in an article on a topic. I would see no problem, for example, in citing a relatively low level source for a proposition that a cryptocurrency had changed its logo from logo A to logo B at some point, or to quote the founder on why they like the new logo. Every article should have some strong sources, but not every source for every point needs to be a high-level source. BD2412 T 03:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that we can use lower sources to justify a change in logo from A to B. I have been calling those changes 'non-controversial' and just going along with the flow of those editors. Sometimes later another editor will delete that content saying it is controversial (or they just dont like it, although they don't often say that). Mostly what we are dealing with in this crypto space though is promotional edits and it is hard to identify what is content and what is promotional. For example this ripple article (my OR coming here) is that it uses less energy (promotional vs proof of work coins) and that it is faster (promotional against slower coins), and that it is not just a centralized corporate coin, etc. I dont know if any of this is true, but we have seen it here. Essentially it is key PR talking points about why to buy ripple. We see similar talking points come up at other articles, for example Bitcoin Cash, where the talking points is that it is the 'true bitcoin.' Ethereum for a while was the everything computer and needed to list every Dapp and use case that had been announced. These coins are all fighting to be recognized and justify their valuation, so we get pumpers come here to wikipedia to promote them. It is for this reason that WP:GS/CRYPTO was put in place. As related to the SCIRS essay, I came in on the other side of that seeking to add content to an article that editors said couldnt be added due to SCIRS, see Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#RFC_on_EBML_content_relating_to_agrichemicals. So I have indeed been on both sides of the debate. I dont know what to do here in this crypto genre. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have plans through the Thanksgiving weekend (I like to write at least one new article per day, and I have some lined up for that), but will be able to revisit this article at the beginning of December. More can be drawn from the Gorton book, and the cited CNBC article as well as some other CNBC coverage, and perhaps from Kyles, Dianna L. (2022). "Centralized control over decentralized structures: AML and CTF regulation of blockchains and distributed ledgers". In Doron Goldbarsht; Louis de Koker (eds.). Financial Technology and the Law: Combating Financial Crime. Springer Nature. pp. 133–135.. I would also suggest restoring the Bloomberg profile citation for the proposition that the parent company changed its name. BD2412 T 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

When I do a search for "XRP Ledger" CNBC in google news I dont get anything of depth. I get 1, 2, & 3. None of these refer to XRP Ledger in any depth, and just say that XRP is a token (owned mostly by Ripple) that lives on the XRP Ledger. Each of these is a passing mention that really seem to refer more to the parent company's PR efforts, generally doing some partnership, giving out some XRP to fund xyz, etc. I dont think passing mention sources like this lead to notability. Clearly Ripple (the company) is notable, but is this blockchain of theirs? By the bloomberg source, do you mean the stock quote page for Ripple labs? If this is the source, we are not using these as RS to justify notability and certainly it has nothing to do with the XRP Ledger, it would be for the Ripple company or the token it sells. I still dont understand why this article exists, it could just be a section on the Ripple corp article, Ripple corp just operates this blockchain that run on trusted servers (I am guessing servers authorized by Ripple). Sounds like a non-notable product page. By the way, I applaud your efforts to create one article per day, that is amazing. I have created maybe a dozen articles and it takes me hours (or days) to just do one of them. Amazing and thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will have a look after Thanksgiving. I don't think, however, that this should be considered as a "product" at all, but as a math and technology problem. BD2412 T 02:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this is a key point of contention we need to flesh out then first. From my understanding Ripple Corp funds the Ripple Foundation, and the Ripple Foundation funds the 'open source' development and maintenance of this 'open blockchain.' Clearly the PR talking points are otherwise, but I think we need to have a look into this and see if the RS support that PR claim prior to putting forth this position in wikivoice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the United States Securities and Exchange Commission thought there was something unique about this configuration, such that they sought to regulate it in a way that they have not sought to regulate other blockchain/cryptocurrency configurations. (I head the WP:USCJ Wikiproject, which is what interested me in this subject in the first place). When I revisit this next week, I will have a look at HeinOnline, which I believe has a number of law review articles addressing the litigation. Some of these are likely to evaluate the SEC's claim to this effect. BD2412 T 18:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Would love to read the stuff. There was also a very interesting appeals court ruling against OFAC about an hour ago relating to Tornado Cash, wonder if you care to have a look at that as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks (but one thing at a time). BD2412 T 01:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

There is a repeat of "XRP has been noted to have substantially greater energy efficiency (and therefore less environmental impact) than most cryptocurrencies." in the first paragraph. We should remove one of them. Rugulele (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Rugulele:  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

URLs to Github repository are outdated (and version numbers too)

Although the link to the main application, i.e. "rippled" (the XRP Ledger server), currently still correctly forwards, the outdated URL https://github.com/ripple/rippled could/should be replaced with https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled

According to my research with the Wayback machine, the "rippled" repository moved in 2022, between June 29th and July 3rd already. https://web.archive.org/web/20220629073112/https://github.com/ripple

While at it, actually also the version number of the current stable version could be updated (currently 2.3.0 already), including its reference to its "Official Source code" from https://github.com/ripple to https://github.com/XRPLF 77.11.230.78 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated the link and version - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis

I have performed a source analysis on a subpage at Talk:XRP Ledger/Source analysis, considering nine ten sources currently used in the article (I have added one), and ten nine potential sources not currently used in the article. I would not consider this a comprehensive or complete analysis, but a reasonable start for the sources examined. The book by Mary Lacity and another looks most promising. BD2412 T 23:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)