Who Actually Controls Changes to the XRP Ledger?

A common criticism of XRP is that Ripple controls the network.

The reality is more complicated.

Ripple is an important company in the XRP ecosystem, contributes code and operates infrastructure, but it cannot simply push a protocol change onto the XRP Ledger by itself. Changes to the network must go through XRPL’s amendment process, which depends on support from trusted validators across the network.

Under the XRP Ledger amendment process, a proposed amendment generally needs more than 80% support from trusted validators for two consecutive weeks before it becomes enabled.

<iframe src=”https://widgets.coincodex.com/w/9fb9c696-b366-447f-a1ee-3fb64204f7f2?site=coinpaper&mode=light” width=”100%” height=”420” frameborder=”0” referrerpolicy=”no-referrer-when-downgrade” style=”border:0;background:transparent;border-radius:0px;”></iframe>Ripple Can Propose Changes, but It Cannot Force Them

Ripple engineers are major contributors to XRPL software, but code contribution and network control are not the same thing.

Validators decide which transactions and ledgers they consider valid, while operators choose which validators they trust through their Unique Node Lists, or UNLs. XRPL consensus depends on those overlapping trust relationships rather than a single central authority.

That means even a change supported by Ripple still needs enough validator backing to activate.

The current BatchV1_1 upgrade illustrates the process. Coinpaper recently covered how the amendment is approaching a projected Sept. 29 activation after reaching the required validator-support threshold. The change does not become active merely because developers released the code; validator support has to remain above the required level.

This same distinction matters for proposed native lending features. XRPL’s lending functionality is still described as open for voting, showing that appearing in the software is not the same as becoming part of the live network.

So Who Has the Most Power?

There is no single answer.

Ripple has substantial influence because of its history, engineering resources and role in the ecosystem. But influence is different from unilateral control.

Validators collectively determine whether amendments gain enough support, node operators decide whom they trust, and developers from across the ecosystem can propose or reject changes.

That structure is why controversial amendments can stall even after they are coded.

Coinpaper’s coverage of XRPL’s upcoming Batch upgrade shows how validator thresholds determine activation timing, while the proposed XRPL lending upgrade provides the opposite example: a feature can exist in software without yet having enough support to go live.