Australian lawyer and prominent XRP community commentator Bill Morgan made headlines by calling on Ripple to relock less than its billion monthly deposit of XRP. According to Morgan, accelerating the path to full circulating supply would make XRP a credible monetary asset and eliminate the oversupply that continues to weigh on sentiment.
The argument isn’t new in broad strokes, but the specifics of Morgan’s framework push it into sharper territory, and Ripple’s own CTO Emeritus has already drawn a clear line on how far the company is willing to go.
LEGAL EXPERT BILL MORGAN URGES RIPPLE TO UNLOCK XRP TOKENS FASTER
32.74 BILLION XRP STILL LOCKED IN ESCROW
"THE SOONER EVERYTHING IS FREED FROM ESCROW + THE CIRCULATING SUPPLY IS 100% – THE QUICKER XRP WILL BECOME THE BEST HARD MONEY"
THE CURRENT PACE COULD TAKE NEARLY 9 YEARS pic.twitter.com/J7KGnmRcy7
— XRP GURU
LEGAL EXPERT BILL MORGAN URGES RIPPLE TO UNLOCK XRP TOKENS FASTER
(@Xrp_Guru1) June 24, 2026With 32.74 billion The question the XRP community is now openly debating is not whether the overhang is real, but whether Ripple has both the incentive and flexibility to compress this timeline.
Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio
Ripple supply overhang
Ripple established its escrow system in 2017, placing 55 billion XRP into 55 separate contracts on the ledger, each releasing 1 billion XRP on the first of each month. The mechanism was designed to create a predictable and verifiable supply and avoid an unexpected discharge of a centralized treasury.
However, what it also created, by design, was an indefinitely expandable schedule: Ripple takes what it needs for operations and institutional distribution, then reintegrates the rest into new contracts, thereby moving the schedule forward month by month.
Morgan’s position, expressed publicly on X, is direct:
The logic is on three levels. First, less relocking shortens the horizon by nine years. Second, full circulation removes the phantom psychological supply that suppresses valorization. Third, a fixed, fully circulating crypto supply is structurally more credible to institutional players who value assets based on known fundamentals rather than unknowable future release schedules.
It’s worth noting that Morgan is looking for an argument. He has previously defended the deposit mechanism itself against allegations that it is a deliberate price suppression tool. He also highlighted that XRP ranged from around $0.50 to over $3.00 between November 2024 and January 2025, while monthly releases continued uninterrupted. His current appeal aims to speed up the completion of a process he considers legitimate.
Discover: the best token presales
David Schwartz draws the line
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz did not approve of the acceleration and he categorically rejected the most radical version of the proposal circulating in the XRP community: burning the sequestered supply outright.
Schwartz cited the symbolic burning of Stellar as his main cautionary reference. He argues that the destruction of supply produced a short-lived market reaction rather than a lasting revaluation. His broader defense of the current model is that Ripple voluntarily relocks any XRP it does not immediately need.
On the issue of timing in particular, Schwartz acknowledged the inherent uncertainty:
“It’s hard to predict because you have to make assumptions about how much XRP Ripple uses and how much will be reinvested in the following months.”
Schwartz’s position is structurally consistent with how Ripple has managed escrow since its inception. The company has positioned measured and predictable distribution as a feature, not a constraint. Changing this calculation would require Ripple to decide that the reputational and institutional benefits of acceleration outweigh the risks of increased selling pressure in the near term. This is essentially a compromise that the company has not yet indicated it wants to make.
Ripple’s recent MiCA regulatory approvals in Europe reinforce this model: the company is building compliant infrastructure and supply stability is part of this institutional argument.
Don’t miss our $1,000 USDT airdrop on ByBit
What the Community Debate Really Reveals About XRP Beyond the News Headlines
Beyond the news headlines, the division within the XRP community clearly corresponds to two different theories about what XRP is supposed to be. The pro-acceleration camp, aligned with Morgan, views the hard money narrative as the primary long-term value proposition. A fixed, fully circulating supply that can be evaluated based solely on demand fundamentals. The pro-pace camp sees Ripple’s controlled distribution as an asset to institutional credibility, not a liability.
A third concern exists in both camps: if Ripple releases more net XRP per month without a corresponding increase in demand, the additional supply hits the market in the form of selling pressure. The current price action of XRP does not obviously signal that the market is limited in terms of capacity on the demand side, so as to cleanly absorb larger monthly net releases.
The token burning option, meanwhile, is effectively closed. Schwartz’s Stellar reference reflects a well-established internal view that destroying escrow reserves would produce noise and permanently eliminate the optionality currently held by Ripple.
Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio
The article XRP News: Why Ripple’s 9-year clock divides the community appeared first on Cryptonews.
