Ripple honorary CTO David Schwartz has outlined why he believes cryptocurrencies such as XRP and BTC can be more attractive than stablecoins in certain financial use cases, especially when price stability is not the main objective. In comments shared on social platform X, Schwartz said the differences come down to three main factors: global usability, exposure to issuer control, and long-term appreciation potential.
Stablecoins may not fit every global use case
Schwartz argued that stablecoins are often tied to a single fiat currency, which can limit their effectiveness across jurisdictions that operate with different monetary systems. In cross-border payments, trade settlement, and decentralized applications serving users in multiple regions, a fiat-pegged token may not always provide the exact currency exposure or flexibility needed. From that perspective, the core design of stablecoins can make them highly useful in some settings, but less ideal in broader international environments.
His point was not that stablecoins lack value. Rather, he suggested that their utility is narrower because they inherit the constraints of the fiat currencies they track. For users or businesses operating across several countries, that can create friction when a single-currency token does not align with the realities of multi-currency activity.
Issuer control remains a key trade-off
The second issue raised by Schwartz was control. He warned that stablecoins can be frozen or clawed back by their issuers, a feature that reflects the centralized nature of most fiat-backed digital tokens. Because issuers are subject to court orders, regulation, and legal obligations, users may ultimately depend on a third party for continued access to their funds.
According to Schwartz, that creates a structural difference between stablecoins and decentralized cryptocurrencies. In scenarios involving legal disputes, regulatory action, or geopolitical pressure, access to stablecoin balances could be restricted without the user’s consent. By contrast, decentralized assets such as Bitcoin are not governed by a single issuing entity capable of directly freezing balances in the same way.
At the same time, Schwartz acknowledged that centralized design can be beneficial in some contexts. He noted that when volatility is a major concern, stablecoins may be the better option. Likewise, in settings where a trusted counterparty and regulated financial exposure are important, stablecoins can offer advantages that decentralized crypto assets do not.
Why he would prefer XRP or BTC for locked funds
Schwartz’s third argument focused on long-term value. He said that for many cryptocurrencies, the potential upside is often greater than the downside risk, particularly in cases where users do not require immediate stability. That view led to one of his clearest comparisons: if money had to be locked in escrow for a year, he said he would likely choose XRP or BTC over USD, because he does not expect the U.S. dollar itself to appreciate.
That statement highlights a major distinction between stablecoins and non-pegged crypto assets. Stablecoins are generally designed to preserve nominal value and reduce volatility, while assets such as Bitcoin and XRP are often held with the expectation of capital appreciation. In other words, one is optimized for stability and settlement, while the other may appeal more in situations where growth potential matters.
Schwartz’s comments suggest that the choice between stablecoins and cryptocurrencies should depend on the purpose of the funds. If the primary goal is short-term predictability, accounting simplicity, or regulated digital cash exposure, stablecoins may be the more practical instrument. But if the user values borderless functionality, reduced dependence on a centralized issuer, and the possibility of future price gains, cryptocurrencies may be more compelling.
Different tools for different financial priorities
The broader message from Schwartz is that stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are not interchangeable, even though both are part of the digital asset ecosystem. Stablecoins serve a clear role in payments, settlement, and risk reduction. Cryptocurrencies, by contrast, can offer broader portability across systems and jurisdictions, as well as a distinct ownership model that does not rely on a centralized issuing institution.
His remarks also come at a time when market participants are increasingly evaluating digital assets based on practical use cases rather than ideology alone. For treasurers, cross-border operators, and crypto-native users, the comparison is less about which asset class is universally better and more about which one best fits a given objective. In Schwartz’s framework, stablecoins are useful when consistency is essential, while XRP and BTC may be preferable when users want long-term upside and stronger control over their assets.
Ultimately, the debate he raised reflects a larger theme in digital finance: different asset types solve different problems. Stablecoins can reduce volatility and integrate more easily with regulated financial systems. Cryptocurrencies can offer open-ended exposure, broader global reach, and fewer points of centralized intervention. Schwartz’s preference for XRP and BTC in a one-year escrow scenario underscores that distinction and reinforces the idea that time horizon and control preferences are central to digital asset selection.