47%. That’s how much Ripple USD’s circulating supply ballooned in June—no press blitz, no token rewards, just raw demand.
Here's What Actually Happened
I’ve been trading this market since Mt. Gox still felt unbreakable, and I can’t remember another dollar-pegged coin growing this fast without the usual VC-inflated fireworks. Ripple’s newcomer, RLUSD, sprinted from roughly $310 million to $455 million in thirty days. The kicker? 95 percent of that stack lives on Ethereum, not the XRP Ledger (XRPL) it was supposedly born to showcase. If that sounds backward, you’re not alone—I had to triple-check Etherscan because the numbers looked upside-down.
Over the weekend, veteran YouTuber Crypto Eri cracked open the debate on X (the site formerly known as Twitter, for anyone who’s been living under a rock since Elon’s rebrand). A couple of skeptics barked back, claiming RLUSD is just another liquidity gift for ETH DeFi and that XRP holders are, once again, being left with empty bags. I get the frustration. In 2017 we watched XRP rip past $3, only to grind sideways for what felt like an entire geological era while Ethereum scooped up every DeFi narrative. So why should things play out any differently now?
My War Story: The Sidechain That Changed Nothing (Until It Did)
Back in 2019 I spent months covering the launch of Binance Chain. At first, 90 % of BUSD volume also lived on Ethereum. Everyone said, “BNB’s never going to capture that liquidity.” Fast-forward to mid-2021, and BUSD on BSC dwarfed its ERC-20 twin. I’m not saying history rhymes perfectly—regulators have Binance in a chokehold these days—but I’ve seen liquidity migrate once a chain nails three factors:
- Cheap, predictable fees
- Plug-and-play developer tooling
- A user interface that doesn’t fry grandma’s MetaMask
The XRPL just ticked box number two in a big way. On 30 June 2025, Ripple flipped on its EVM-compatible sidechain. Within a week, 1,400+ smart contracts had been deployed, and Axelar opened a bridge to 80 other networks. That’s the sort of plumbing we were missing in 2018.
Why This Isn’t Just Another “Wait for Utility” Sermon
I can already hear the eye-rolling: “Great, another promise that real volume is just one quarter away.” Trust me, I’m scarred too. Remember Interledger hype cycles? Still, there are two flywheels here the skeptics are underestimating:
1. Transaction fees are paid in XRP. Every RLUSD transfer that eventually shifts to XRPL becomes organic XRP demand. Ripple still controls north of 40 billion tokens, so they’re financially incentivized to make that happen.
2. EVM compatibility means DeFi builders don’t have to choose. They can spin up the same Solidity contracts but settle finality on XRPL’s low-cost consensus layer. Less gas, same code—lazy developers (no offense, devs) love that.
That second point matters more than you’d think. I hopped on a call last Friday with a DeFi dev who shipped one of the first yield optimizers on Arbitrum. He told me bluntly: “If XRPL’s sidechain lets me deploy without rewriting everything, I’ll bridge liquidity tomorrow. My users only care about fees.” Anecdotal, sure, but these are the folks who move nine-figure stablecoin pools with a single governance vote.
The Quiet Regulatory Gambit
Of course, code alone won’t convince BlackRock or the next fintech unicorn to park a billion dollars in RLUSD. That’s why the banking charter application Ripple filed on 2 June has me more intrigued than any flashy TPS benchmark. If the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency green-lights Ripple as a national trust bank, RLUSD reserves could sit at the Federal Reserve itself. No middleman, no “not your keys, not your dollars” headache.
We’re basically talking about the Circle playbook—but with a side of EVM ju-jitsu. Circle spent years buttering up regulators so USDC could muscle into Treasuries and Fed reverse-repo. Ripple’s trying to skip a step by securing a Fed master account out of the gate via its Standard Custody & Trust subsidiary. That dovetails with the bipartisan GENIUS Act, which would slap a single federal wrapper around stablecoin issuers. The bill hasn’t cleared Congress yet, but either way, Ripple’s parking spot at the Fed would become a moat rivals can’t easily cross.
Numbers That Don’t Lie—Yet
Let’s talk hard data before the hopium kicks in:
- Current RLUSD supply: $455 million
- On Ethereum: ~$390 million
- On XRPL: ~$65 million
- June growth rate: 47 %
- XRP price: $2.27 at press time
If even 20 % of that Ethereum supply migrates over the next 12 months, XRPL would suddenly be settling close to $80 million in stablecoins—that’s meaningful fee pressure. Last cycle, that kind of volume was enough to push BNB from $40 to $300. Granted, BNB has an aggressive burn schedule XRP lacks, but the directional impact is similar: more throughput, more token sinks.
But Here’s What Keeps Me Up at Night
First, liquidity begets liquidity. Ethereum DeFi isn’t going to give up its pie without forking out a fight. UniSwap v4’s hooks could make on-chain spreads even thinner, keeping RLUSD rooted where the action already is. Second, the OCC isn’t exactly doling out trust-bank charters like candy. Custodia’s saga proved how political that process can become. If Ripple gets stonewalled, RLUSD may still be stuck shuffling between commercial banks, and that kills the “Fed-grade” narrative.
Finally—and this is a bit philosophical—XRP’s community can be its own worst enemy. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen legitimate critiques dismissed as FUD before they’re even addressed. Builders hate shouting into an echo chamber. If Ripple wants outside devs to stick around once the marketing budget runs dry, it’ll need to foster open-source culture, not just slick conference booths.
So, Will RLUSD Actually Drag Liquidity Home?
I’m not entirely sure, and anyone telling you they are is selling something. But let me map out two scenarios:
Bullish Path: OCC charter lands in Q4 2025, GENIUS Act passes, RLUSD gets a Fed master account. CeFi desks list RLUSD/XRP pairs, driving swap volume. EVM builders migrate 25 % of contracts to XRPL for cheaper fees. XRP re-tests its 2021 high around $3.80—suddenly those dusty Ledger Nano S devices have life again.
Bearish Path: Charter drags into 2026, ETH DeFi volumes keep dwarfing XRPL. Gas fees on Ethereum dip thanks to danksharding, killing XRPL’s cost advantage. RLUSD remains a rounding error in a $300 billion stable-value market, and XRP stagnates in the $1-$2 channel.
The truth probably lands somewhere in the messy middle, but remember what the late, great Hal Finney said: “You can’t predict the future, but you can help shape it.” If Ripple executes, we could see a rare alignment of regulatory clarity, technical capacity, and actual institutional appetite—something the 2017 or even 2021 cycle never truly had.
Why This Matters for Your Portfolio
Look, I’m not your financial advisor—my caffeine consumption alone should disqualify me—but I do keep a small bag of XRP staked in cold storage as an optionality bet. RLUSD’s breakout has added some juice to that call option. Is it enough to go all-in? Probably not. But if you believe stablecoins will be the oil of on-chain finance (and the numbers back that up—stablecoin volumes already outpace PayPal), then picking the chains that capture settlement fees is the smart play.
Cheap, fast, regulated—get two out of three and you’ve got a decent project. Nail all three and you get USDC-level stickiness. RLUSD is halfway there. Now it’s Ripple’s turn to prove the rest.
For now, I’ll keep refreshing the bridge stats and maybe, just maybe, dust off my 2014-era XRP memes. If nothing else, they’re overdue for a victory lap.
Catch you on the next block confirmation.
