Ripple honorary CTO David Schwartz has outlined why he believes cryptocurrencies such as XRP and bitcoin can outperform stablecoins in certain financial use cases, especially when users are not primarily seeking price stability. In comments shared on X, Schwartz contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of both asset classes and argued that digital assets may offer better global usability, stronger resistance to issuer intervention, and more compelling long-term upside.
Stablecoins Have Clear Strengths, but Also Structural Limits
Schwartz did not dismiss stablecoins outright. In fact, he acknowledged that when volatility is the main concern, stablecoins may be the better choice. He also noted that regulated assets tied to trusted counterparties can offer advantages in specific circumstances. That framing is important because it shows his argument was not a blanket criticism of stablecoins, but rather a comparison of how different digital assets serve different roles inside the broader financial system.
His first major point focused on the limitations of stablecoins that are pegged to a single fiat currency. According to Schwartz, this structure can become restrictive in cross-border use cases that span multiple jurisdictions and currency systems. In practice, users may not always find a stablecoin that matches both the precise fiat exposure they need and the operational flexibility demanded by global applications. That challenge becomes more obvious in areas like cross-border payments, international trade settlement, and decentralized systems operating across regions with different base currencies.
In other words, a dollar-pegged stablecoin may work well for users who specifically want dollar exposure, but it may be less efficient when the economic activity itself is distributed across multiple currency zones. Schwartz’s argument suggests that native cryptocurrencies, which are not tied to a single sovereign currency, can sometimes function more effectively in global environments where neutrality and portability matter.
Issuer Control and Freezing Risk Remain Central Concerns
The second part of Schwartz’s argument dealt with control. He warned that stablecoins can be frozen or clawed back by their issuers. That point reflects a long-running debate in crypto markets: the tradeoff between the predictability of centrally issued digital dollars and the censorship resistance associated with more decentralized cryptocurrencies.
Because stablecoin issuers are centralized entities, they are generally required to comply with court orders, regulatory demands, and other legal directives. Schwartz emphasized that these obligations do not always align with the immediate interests of users. As a result, access to funds can be affected by decisions made by a single organization rather than by the holder alone. He framed this as a meaningful structural difference from cryptocurrencies that are not directly controlled by one issuer.
This concern is especially relevant in scenarios involving legal disputes, regulatory intervention, or geopolitical pressure. In such cases, the asset holder may discover that ownership and access are not equivalent if the issuer has the authority to restrict, freeze, or recover tokens. Schwartz’s comments reinforce a common crypto-native view that self-sovereign assets may be preferable when minimizing third-party control is a priority.
For One-Year Escrow, He Would Prefer XRP or BTC
Schwartz’s third point centered on long-term value potential. He argued that for many cryptocurrencies, the upside may be greater than the downside in many situations. Based on that reasoning, he said that if stability is not required, users may prefer cryptocurrencies over stablecoins in a wide range of use cases.
He made the distinction especially clear with an escrow example. Schwartz said that if he had to lock funds in escrow for one year, he would be more likely to choose XRP or BTC over USD, because he knows the U.S. dollar itself is not expected to appreciate. That statement does not imply that crypto is risk-free; rather, it highlights how asset selection changes when the time horizon extends and the user is willing to accept volatility in exchange for possible appreciation.
For investors, treasurers, or market participants evaluating where to park capital temporarily, the comparison is significant. A stablecoin can preserve nominal fiat value more predictably, but it generally does not offer appreciation beyond yield opportunities available through separate strategies. By contrast, assets like bitcoin and XRP may fluctuate sharply, yet they also carry the possibility of capital gains over the holding period. Schwartz’s framework suggests that the right choice depends less on ideology and more on the specific goal of the funds being held.
Different Assets, Different Jobs
At the heart of Schwartz’s comments is the idea that stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are not interchangeable. Stablecoins are useful when users want reduced volatility, clearer fiat denomination, or exposure to regulated issuers. Cryptocurrencies such as XRP and BTC may be more attractive when the priorities are global transferability, lower dependence on centralized control, and long-term upside potential.
The distinction also matters for how digital assets are used in real-world financial infrastructure. In payments, treasury management, settlement, and escrow arrangements, the “best” asset may vary depending on whether the user values stability, mobility, neutrality, compliance, or growth. Schwartz’s comments therefore contribute to a broader industry discussion rather than simply promoting one category over another.
His remarks arrive at a time when stablecoins are becoming increasingly important in crypto and traditional finance, while established cryptocurrencies continue to be evaluated not only as speculative assets but also as tools for settlement and value transfer. As adoption expands, the market may become more segmented: stablecoins serving as transactional and fiat-linked instruments, while assets like XRP and BTC occupy roles tied to liquidity, cross-border utility, and longer-term capital allocation.
Ultimately, Schwartz’s position can be summarized as conditional rather than absolute. If a user needs stability, a stablecoin may be the more practical answer. But if the user is comfortable with volatility and wants to avoid issuer control while preserving the chance of appreciation, then cryptocurrencies such as XRP and BTC may offer a stronger fit. That distinction is likely to remain central as the digital asset market continues to mature and differentiate.