Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
A fresh bout of tribal sparring over token valuations broke out on X after CoinRoutes founder Dave Weisberger asked why XRP trades at more than ten times the market value of Chainlink’s LINK despite Chainlink’s high-profile role in financial-market infrastructure. The exchange, which followed Swift’s announcement at Sibos that it will launch a blockchain-based ledger, quickly crystallized two very different theories of “value capture” in crypto: a native asset securing and settling an L1 network versus a utility token powering oracle middleware.
Weisberger set the stage with a direct challenge to the XRP community: “Can someone from the XRP army (@xrpmickle) explain how XRP is more than TEN times LINK’s value, when LINK has a REAL partnership with SWIFT, AND a clear path to revenue to be shared with Token holders…” The prompt referenced Chainlink’s post congratulating Swift on adopting “blockchains and oracle networks as a key next step,” and emphasizing that Chainlink and Swift “have collaborated across numerous initiatives” to connect financial institutions to blockchains using existing infrastructure and standards.
Why Is XRP 10x More ‘Valuable’ Than LINK
What followed was equal parts token-economics debate and culture clash. Weisberger, who later clarified “To be clear, I hold both,” added that he thinks “XRP bulls are delusional in their calls,” while conceding that such delusion does not preclude outperformance versus traditional assets. His framing invited two lines of reply: the “volume and adoption” argument and the “different problem, different TAM” argument.
On the data front, one respondent, @baggins_cc, asserted that “The XRP token has a $172B market cap, while LINK has $14B (1/10th). And when looking at the last 24h, by volume, XRPL has processed $4.9B in revenue, compared to LINK, which only has processed $641M. Marketcap is absolute when it comes to ranking, and Volume is empirical & objectively a fact, when it comes to real world adoption.”
Weisberger pushed back with a counterexample intended to decouple throughput from token value: “What is the value of XRPL to XRP when TRX processes more than 500 TIMES USDT by value and is 1/5th the market cap?” The thrust: raw settlement or messaging volume does not automatically translate into superior price performance or capitalization for a token.
The second, more structural line of response came from former Ripple engineer Matt Hamilton. In a succinct distinction, he wrote: “Trying to compare their value is sort of meaningless. Link is a protocol, the XRP Ledger is an actual network. XRP is the native asset of that entire network. Link is just the token used within the link protocol.” In other words, the two assets occupy different positions in the technology stack: XRP is the base-layer currency of an L1 that provides security, fee payment, and liquidity for its ledger; LINK is the work token for an oracle protocol that sits above execution layers to deliver data and cross-chain services.
That stack-positioning argument was amplified by the XRP army member “Ripple Bull Winkle,” who reframed the comparison in terms of addressable markets: “Because XRP isn’t competing with LINK — it’s solving a different problem on a much larger scale. LINK = middleware for data feeds. XRP = bridge asset for global settlement. One secures oracles, the other settles value between banks, CBDCs, tokenized treasuries, & stablecoins. The TAM for cross-border payments dwarfs oracle revenue. And by the way — Ripple has been partnered with SWIFT participants for years. This isn’t XRP vs LINK, it’s XRP in the heart of the plumbing that moves the actual money. That’s why the market values it 10x higher.”
Other replies took aim at investor narratives themselves. When a commenter criticized Weisberger’s “lazy ask,” he volleyed back with a reminder that many were “talked into XRP based on SWIFT, despite no clear token economics and no definitive use case,” nodding to years of marketing-driven expectations that official banking rails would one day require XRP.
In the end, the thread does not “prove” why XRP is worth ten times LINK or vice versa; instead, it exposes a fundamental split in crypto investing frameworks. One camp prioritizes native-asset economics of base layers and their role as neutral settlement media; the other prioritizes revenue-bearing middleware whose services are indispensable to a tokenized financial system.
As the Swift news resets expectations about how legacy rails will interface with blockchains, the core question for markets remains unchanged: which designs actually trap value, and how verifiably do those mechanics funnel real-world usage into persistent demand for the token itself? On that score, the debate is far from settled.
At press time, XRP traded at $2.84.
