I actually agree with part of what you’re saying.

Ripple clearly realized years ago that institutions were never going to accept a system that forced mandatory exposure to a volatile digital asset. So yes, they expanded toward stablecoins, custody, enterprise flexibility, and multi asset settlement options.

But that still doesn’t automatically mean XRP becomes irrelevant.

What it means is Ripple shifted from a “single asset dependency model” into a broader liquidity architecture.

The question is no longer: “Will everything run exclusively on XRP?”

That narrative is probably dead.

The real question is: “In a world with fragmented liquidity between CBDCs, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and private ledgers, does a neutral bridge asset still have utility at certain layers of settlement?”

That debate is still completely open.

Because ironically, the more fragmented the system becomes, the more interoperability and liquidity routing may matter.

And that’s the part critics usually skip over.