Is the XRP Ledger Decentralized? Validators and the UNL Explained

XRP has no miners and no stakers. When you send XRP and it settles in about four seconds, something confirmed it. According to the Bullrunners video, that something is roughly 35 computers run by real people agreeing on the order in which things happened.

Whether that setup counts as decentralized is a live argument between a European crypto fund manager and one of the people who wrote the XRP Ledger’s code. The video doesn’t pick a winner. Instead it explains how validators, the trust list and voting actually work, so holders can read the debate themselves.

What does an XRP Ledger validator do?

Bitcoin is secured by proof of work (mining) and Ethereum by proof of stake (locked coins). The XRP Ledger uses neither. Its validators have a much narrower job than most people assume: they put transactions in order.

The video stresses the reassuring part. A validator cannot approve an invalid transaction, because it doesn’t have that power. Every server on the network, including one you could run yourself, checks the rules independently. Validators only help everyone agree on which transactions came first, which is what prevents the same XRP being spent twice. A dishonest validator isn’t obeyed. It is ignored.

That raises the obvious next question: what stops a validator lying about the order? The answer, per the video, is not mining or staking. It is trust that each server chooses and can revoke.

What is the Unique Node List (UNL)?

The Unique Node List (UNL) is the list of validators a server trusts not to collude against it. Every server has one, whether its operator thinks about it or not. You can build your own, or use a list someone else has published. Almost everyone, including professionals, uses a published list, because vetting a hundred unknown servers isn’t realistic.

The XRP Ledger Foundation publishes the default list. According to the video:

• It is built through public pull requests on GitHub, with changes requiring approvals, and anyone can read the history.
• It includes about 35 operators, out of roughly 100 to 126 validators running on the network.
• Ripple runs one of them.

The Foundation’s head described those 35 operators as people everyone listens to for confirming transactions and voting on new features, and called them “my senators.”

What is the case that the XRP Ledger is centralized?

Justin Bons, who runs the European crypto fund Cyber Capital, posted earlier this year that the UNL makes validators effectively permissioned. He argued that any divergence from the centrally published list would cause a fork, effectively giving the Foundation and Ripple “absolute power and control over the chain.” He also accused XRP of convincing “ignorant retail investors” that it is more decentralized than Bitcoin and Ethereum.

His logic, as the video explains it: if straying too far from the recommended list risks splitting you onto your own network, most people will simply follow whatever a trusted publisher hands them. That soft pressure to conform is a form of control, even if nobody is technically forced.

Under pushback, the video says, Bons clarified that he was not accusing anyone of stealing funds or inflating supply. His narrower claim was that coordinated validators could theoretically censor transactions or attempt a double spend, which he compared to someone controlling most of Bitcoin’s mining power.

What does David Schwartz say in response?

David Schwartz called the claim “objectively nonsensical,” comparing it to saying someone with most of Bitcoin’s mining power could create a billion Bitcoins. His points, per the video:

• Influence isn’t control. Having a say over which validators people trust is not the power to rewrite what happened. Every node checks for itself, so the network can’t be forced to accept a transaction it disagrees with.
• Your node won’t go along. You count how many validators agree with your node, and your node won’t agree to a double spend or censorship unless you want it to.
• The list is replaceable. If a list ever went bad, the fix is to choose a new UNL, much as Bitcoin holders would have to agree on a new mining algorithm if miners went rogue.

Schwartz also conceded a limitation. He accepted that a coordinated group could, in theory, halt the network from an honest node’s point of view: freeze it, but not push a fraudulent transaction through. He argued that halting is a very different failure from a successful theft.

He also described parts of the design as deliberate: that low validator counts work better than high ones, and that stakeholder-based governance is itself centralizing, because someone has to decide who counts as a stakeholder.

Bons offered to debate him live on a podcast. As far as the video could tell, that hasn’t happened. By then, the video says, the two weren’t really disagreeing about mechanics but about what “decentralized” should mean.

How are new features added to the XRP Ledger?

New features arrive as amendments, and the rules show what the system prioritizes:

1. An amendment needs more than 80% support from trusted validators.
2. It must hold that level continuously for two full weeks.
3. If support drops below 80% at any point, the clock resets to zero.
4. Every new amendment starts with its default set to reject. Someone must actively choose to switch it on.
5. Once enabled, an amendment is permanent. There is no undo.

The video’s summary: the system would rather be slow than wrong. It points to two recent tests. The Batch and permission delegation amendments were both pulled after critical flaws were found, and both had to be rewritten before anyone would trust them again. The process caught both before they touched anyone’s money.

Who runs the validators?

The video plays a community call clip of an independent validator operator in New Zealand, not a Ripple employee, describing a router failure that meant driving 300 km each way to replace it. Whatever you conclude about decentralization, the video notes, these are individuals with real responsibilities, not abstractions.

It also shows the XRP Ledger Foundation’s executive director saying unprompted that the tension between organizing operators and staying decentralized “keeps me up at night,” and that he worries about any one person gaining too much knowledge of the node operators.

How to make up your own mind

The video doesn’t declare the XRP Ledger decentralized or not. It argues holders should understand the mechanics well enough to judge for themselves:

• A validator orders transactions; it can’t approve invalid ones.
• The UNL is a chosen, replaceable list of trusted validators.
• The real risk Schwartz concedes is a halt, not theft.
• Amendments need 80% support for two weeks, default to rejection and are permanent once on.

The exchange between Justin Bons and David Schwartz from February is public, including the replies, which the video says is where the real detail is. Read both sides, and watch future changes to the default UNL on GitHub and upcoming amendment votes for how this governance plays out in practice.