Will Ripple’s Lobbying Efforts Shape the Future of U.S. Crypto Reserves?
Ripple’s Influence in Washington – American crypto companies are riding high after their impressive political comeback, securing significant influence in Washington, D.C. last November. However, a brewing internal conflict may threaten to spoil this victory, with factions within the industry now at odds over how the U.S. government should handle digital assets in the future.
Trump’s Crypto Executive Order and Bitcoin’s Omission
Last week, President Donald Trump issued a much-anticipated executive order on crypto, fulfilling his promise to deliver a range of wishlist items to the industry. However, a glaring omission has sparked outrage among Bitcoin proponents. The executive order, which outlined plans to explore the creation of a federal crypto reserve, failed to explicitly mention Bitcoin—the cryptocurrency Trump had previously vowed to include in a national stockpile.
While the executive order touched on the creation of a digital asset stockpile, it did not commit to a Bitcoin reserve, leading many in the Bitcoin community to voice their discontent.
Bitcoiners Blame Ripple for the Omission
In a dramatic response, Jack Mallers, CEO of Zap—a Bitcoin payment company—accused Ripple of actively lobbying against the creation of a federal Bitcoin reserve. Mallers argued that Ripple, the company behind XRP, had spent millions to ensure that the order would not specifically mention Bitcoin, but instead referenced a broader category of digital assets.
“I can confirm Ripple is actively spending millions of dollars trying to undermine a strategic Bitcoin reserve in the United States,” Mallers declared in a passionate video posted to X. He argued that Ripple’s goal was to ensure that if a government reserve for digital assets were created, XRP would be included alongside Bitcoin, rather than allowing Bitcoin to stand as the sole representative of the industry.
The accusation sparked a fierce response from the Bitcoin community, with many alleging that Ripple’s political clout was at play. Ripple had played a pivotal role in the $300 million super PAC strategy that successfully influenced Washington last year, and it had even spent $5 million on Trump’s inauguration. This level of involvement made it easy for Bitcoin advocates to assume Ripple’s role in removing Bitcoin from the executive order.
The Bitcoin and XRP Divide
The tensions run deeper than just political maneuvering. A significant divide exists between the two factions, particularly regarding the nature of the two assets. XRP, unlike Bitcoin, is controlled by Ripple Labs, a private company that holds a large portion of the digital asset. In contrast, Bitcoin is decentralized and has no central entity controlling its supply. This difference has made Bitcoin supporters wary of any efforts that could elevate XRP’s status to be on equal footing with Bitcoin.
Ripple’s ongoing $1.3 billion lawsuit with the SEC further highlights the contentious nature of XRP, especially as Ripple’s sales of the cryptocurrency have come under scrutiny. In contrast, Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos and widespread adoption give it a reputation as the most trusted digital asset.
Ripple’s Response and the Concept of a “Crypto Reserve”
In response to the backlash, Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple, addressed the accusations, but he was careful in his statements. Garlinghouse denied working to undermine Bitcoin’s role in the reserve but did acknowledge Ripple’s intention to see XRP included in any federal reserve of digital assets.
“If a government digital asset reserve is created, I believe it should be representative of the industry, not just one token (whether it be BTC, XRP, or anything else),” Garlinghouse wrote on X. He dismissed the idea of “Bitcoin maximalism” as outdated and misinformed, urging the industry to come together for the common good.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Garlinghouse continued. “The crypto industry has a real shot, here and now, to achieve the many goals we have in common, IF we work together instead of tearing each other down.”
Bitcoin Maximalists Stand Firm
The response from Bitcoin maximalists was swift and firm. Samson Mow, co-founder of Blockstream, a prominent Bitcoin company, criticized Garlinghouse’s comments, arguing that there was no shared vision between the two camps. Mow emphasized that Bitcoin’s principles of decentralization and transparency were at odds with Ripple’s centralized control over XRP.
Matthew Sigel, Head of Digital Assets Research at VanEck, also weighed in, taking a more measured stance but still opposing Ripple’s push for a strategic reserve that would include XRP. “It’s not maximalism to oppose a Strategic Reserve of XRP,” Sigel posted in response to Garlinghouse’s comments.
The Stakes: Will Washington Take Sides?
With both factions of the crypto industry now at odds, the question remains: Will Washington pick sides in this growing conflict over a government crypto reserve? Some experts believe that the situation is becoming untenable, and the disunity could undermine the industry’s chances of success.
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), a staunch advocate for crypto, warned that if industry factions fail to align, their efforts to secure a government reserve could be doomed. “If they’re not on the same page, they’re done,” Lummis said in an interview with Politico. “It makes our job almost impossible if they’re not on the same page.”
Lummis emphasized the need for a unified voice from the crypto industry to achieve any progress in Washington, particularly in the face of mounting competition from traditional financial institutions and government regulators.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrencies and stocks, particularly in micro-cap companies, are subject to significant volatility and risk. Please conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions.
Leave a comment