Australian lawyer and XRP commentator Bill Morgan has gained attention after urging Ripple to reduce the amount of XRP it re-locks from its monthly 1 billion token escrow releases. He argues that accelerating the path toward full circulation would reinforce XRP’s positioning as a hard-money-like asset and help remove the ongoing supply overhang that continues to pressure sentiment.
While the idea itself has circulated before, Morgan’s latest framing adds sharper emphasis to the debate. Ripple’s CTO Emeritus has already made clear that there are firm boundaries around how far the company is willing to adjust its escrow system.
With around 32.74 billion XRP still locked and the current structure implying roughly a nine-year timeline to full release, the mechanics behind the system give weight to Morgan’s argument. The core question being debated is whether the supply overhang is truly restrictive—and whether Ripple has both the incentive and operational flexibility to shorten the timeline.
XRP escrow design and supply flow
Ripple launched its escrow system in 2017, locking 55 billion XRP into 55 on-ledger contracts, each releasing 1 billion XRP at the start of each month. The purpose was to create predictable, transparent issuance and avoid sudden large supply shocks from Ripple’s holdings.
Over time, however, the mechanism has functioned as a rolling schedule. Ripple withdraws what it needs for operations and institutional distribution, then re-locks the remaining XRP into new escrow contracts, effectively extending the release timeline on a continuous basis.
This structure leads to three key implications. First, reducing relocking would accelerate full circulation. Second, a faster release schedule could eliminate concerns about hidden or extended supply. Third, a fully circulating supply is often seen as more attractive to institutional investors who prefer clear, fixed token economics over uncertain future emissions.
Morgan has previously defended the escrow system against claims that it is intentionally suppressing price. He has also pointed out that XRP still rallied from around $0.50 to over $3.00 between late 2024 and early 2025 despite ongoing monthly releases. His current position focuses on speeding up what he views as a legitimate distribution mechanism.
David Schwartz’s position
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has not supported accelerating escrow releases and has rejected more extreme proposals, including burning the escrowed XRP supply entirely.
Schwartz has cited Stellar’s token burn as an example, arguing that supply reductions tend to generate only short-term price reactions rather than sustained value improvements. He maintains that Ripple’s current approach—relocking unused tokens—is deliberate and designed to preserve predictability and stability.
This view aligns with Ripple’s broader escrow philosophy, which treats controlled issuance as a feature rather than a drawback. Any acceleration would require Ripple to balance potential benefits against the risk of increased short-term selling pressure, a trade-off the company has so far avoided.
Recent regulatory progress, including MiCA-related approvals in Europe, further reinforces Ripple’s emphasis on compliance and predictable supply management as part of its institutional positioning.
What the debate reveals about XRP
At its core, the discussion reflects two competing interpretations of XRP’s long-term role. One side, represented by Morgan, views full circulation as essential to establishing a “hard money” narrative where price is driven purely by demand. The other side sees Ripple’s controlled distribution as a foundation for institutional trust and orderly market behavior.
A third concern cuts across both views: faster issuance without corresponding demand growth could increase sell pressure on the market. Current price behavior does not clearly show sufficient demand absorption capacity to offset a meaningfully accelerated release schedule.
Ultimately, the debate highlights a deeper tension in XRP’s identity—between viewing controlled supply as a strength that supports adoption, or a constraint that delays its progression toward full market maturity.
