"There’s no decentralized governance because most rely on Ripple’s UNL"

No, any node operator can adopt alternate validator lists, and multiple institutions publish their own, preventing a singular mandatory choice.

Argument

A recommended Unique Node List (UNL) from Ripple is sometimes viewed as exerting centralized governance over the ledger.

Response

The "XRPL’s not decentralized because of Ripple’s UNL" jab is a shot that doesn’t land. Yeah, nearly 1,000 nodes need their Unique Node Lists (UNLs) to overlap on a majority of validators—but that’s not Ripple’s boot on anyone’s neck. Every node operator’s got free rein to forge that overlap however they like—grab a default list, tweak it, or build their own from the ground up. Multiple parties toss out UNLs for the taking: Ripple’s got one, sure, but so does the XRP Ledger Foundation. Validators and the UNL aren’t puppet masters; they’re tiebreakers when two valid transaction sets slug it out—no winner’s trophy, just a nudge to keep the ledger trucking forward.

Malicious clowns? Nodes ghost them—swap out bad validators and roll on. The overlap’s a practical fist bump, not a chokechain—all honest nodes care about is progress, not picking sides. It’s like Bitcoin nodes syncing up on hash algorithms or block size—social consensus, not a top-down edict. Operators pick from a buffet of UNLs—Ripple’s, XRPLF’s, or beyond—and tune them to hit that majority mark. Nearly 1,000 strong, they’re not shackled to one list; they just need enough shared turf to settle ties and march on.

This is decentralized grit—nodes carve their own path to agreement, not bowing to a single script. Ripple’s UNL is one voice in a chorus, not the conductor. Validators referee, not rule, and the crowd calls the shots. It’s social, not singular—same as BTC, different flavor.

References

See Also