"Ripple can pick new validators at any time, so it’s not truly decentralized"

Argument

A recommended UNL from Ripple implies it could add or remove validators whenever it chooses, supposedly giving it ultimate power over the ledger.

Response

The "Ripple can swap validators at will and rig the ledger" claim is a swing that misses the mark. Ripple’s Unique Node List (UNL)? Purely optional—nearly 1,000 node operators can grab it, tweak it, or bin it. If Ripple pitched dodgy validators, the community could flick them off their lists and pivot to others. The XRP Ledger Foundation, exchanges, and indie crews all control their own UNLs—Ripple’s not the only game in town. Nodes need majority overlap in their trusted sets to settle ties between valid transaction batches—think Bitcoin nodes syncing on hash rules—but how they build that overlap is their gig, not Ripple’s mandate.

It’s a bit like DNS on the internet—you pick who you trust—but here’s the twist: unlike DNS handing you answers, validators don’t dictate transaction truth. They’re just sequencers, Web3-style—ordering the lineup, not cooking the books. All honest nodes want is forward motion; there’s no prize for one batch over another, just a nudge to keep the chain rolling. Rogue sequencers get ditched from UNLs—easy as that. Nearly 1,000 operators—devs, universities, outfits—craft their own trusted crew, free and clear.

Decentralization’s the spine here—Ripple’s list is a suggestion, not a stranglehold. Consensus hinges on that overlap, not Ripple’s say-so. "Centralized"? Only if you think agreeing on a playlist order means one DJ owns the party—it’s crowd choice, not a corporate coup.

References

• Managing a Custom UNL
• Multiple UNL Publishers

See Also

• "There’s no decentralized governance because most rely on Ripple’s UNL"
• "XRP is centralized because Ripple has majority control"