Xaman Wallet has come under pressure from the XRP community after users complained that its transaction costs were unexpectedly high. One post on X claimed the wallet could be more expensive than Ethereum gas for small transfers, particularly on trades above $3. The complaint spread quickly and turned into a broader argument about wallet design, fee transparency, and account safety.
David Schwartz pushed back on personal blame
As criticism grew, some users tagged former Ripple CTO David “JoelKatz” Schwartz directly. He replied with a short message: “What did I do?”strong>. The response signaled that he was not involved in the operating decisions of third-party wallet providers such as Xaman. That came after a post aimed at him personally with the message, “Shame on you.”
His comment did not end the dispute. Attention soon shifted away from Schwartz himself and toward Xaman’s use of nested multisignature structures tied to XLS-103d.
Nested multisig design became the core issue
Critics said the nested multisignature setup could create serious problems, including the risk of users being locked out of their own accounts or facing approval paths that were not obvious. Some users reported that they were unable to unwind or resolve existing multisig structures, leaving funds effectively frozen.
That turned the conversation from a fee dispute into a protocol-level concern. For users, the issue was not only how much a transaction cost, but whether the account structure could be safely recovered if something went wrong.
Developer says it was a protocol-allowed configuration
Wietse Wind, a developer working with Xaman and the XRP Ledger, said the problem did not come from a backdoor or malicious behavior. According to his explanation, the issue came from a configuration that the XRP Ledger protocol allows, combined with an unintentional user error.
To address that, a proposal has been submitted to amend the protocol so nested multisignatures can be made recoverable. The change still needs review and approval from validators. That process reflects how XRPL governance works: protocol changes require validator consensus rather than a direct decision by a single team.
For now, the debate around Xaman remains focused on two points: transaction fee expectations and whether the current multisignature design on XRPL gives users enough protection when configurations go wrong.