"Nobody asked for XRP; it was forced onto the market to enrich founders"

No, the ledger’s open-source nature allowed voluntary participation, and the market’s organic demand shaped its ongoing adoption and price.

Argument

It is asserted that the token was imposed on the crypto space by creators looking to profit, instead of arising from genuine community interest.

Response

The "nobody wanted XRP, it was forced to enrich founders" gripe is a flimsy tale that doesn’t match the tape. The XRP Ledger didn’t storm in with a gun to anyone’s head—it dropped as an open-source project, free for anyone to poke, prod, or pass on. No one had to buy a ticket; folks stumbled onto it because it’s fast—under 4 seconds—and doesn’t guzzle resources like Proof-of-Work dinosaurs. That’s not coercion; that’s a shiny tool catching eyes. Nearly 1,000 nodes later, it’s clear—users, devs, and outfits like remittance firms latched on organically, building payment rails, token plays, and swaps because it works.

Yeah, founders like Jed McCaleb snagged big chunks early—100 billion XRP hit the ledger at genesis, and they got theirs. But it’s all on-chain, tracked to the drop—no secret vaults or surprise mints; the supply’s capped, no extras sneaking in. "Forced"? Tell that to the market—XRP’s price and liquidity grew because people traded it, used it, wanted it—not because Ripple held a whip. Founders can’t print more to cash out; they’re riding the same wave as everyone else. Compare that to ICOs fleecing rubes with nothing built—XRPL’s a machine, not a scam.

This isn’t a top-down shove; it’s bottom-up pull. The ledger’s open—coders fork it, nodes run it, adopters shape it. Price in Sats? Steady as a rock eight years on—market’s call, not a founder’s fiat. "Enriching" implies a heist; here, it’s just early birds who bet big and let the crowd decide. XRP’s here because it stuck—not because it was rammed down throats.

References

See Also