Ripple Share Buybacks Could Also Help XRP Holders by Lowering Entry Price: David Schwartz

David Schwartz, former Ripple CTO, has pushed back against claims that the company’s share buyback hurts XRP holders.

Ripple’s recent decision to buy back $750 million of its own shares at a $50 billion valuation has now triggered a serious public discussion about whether the company’s financial decisions work against XRP holders. 

Amid growing criticisms, especially from the Chainlink camp, David Schwartz has come up to suggest that if their argument holds up, then it could also mean that Ripple’s XRP sales to purchase its shares help XRP holders by lowering the entry price.

Key Points

• Ripple recently repurchased $750 million of its own shares at a $50 billion valuation, a move that brought back long-standing criticism.
• A Chainlink community figure argued that XRP holders effectively fund Ripple’s growth while shareholders collect the financial rewards.
• David Schwartz pushed back, stating that a known and constant factor affecting XRP’s price hits buyers and sellers equally, and therefore does not specifically harm holders.
• An XRP community member pointed out that holding Ethereum or Solana also does not entitle investors to profits from Consensys or Solana Labs, making XRP no different from other major crypto assets.

Schwartz Debunks Claims Ripple Share Buyback Harms XRP Holders

Schwartz made the latest comments while responding to criticisms from Chainlink proponent Zach Rynes. Specifically, he rejected the idea that Ripple is hurting XRP holders through its financial decisions. 

According to him, if the criticism that Ripple lowers XRP’s price by selling XRP tokens to fund share buybacks is correct, then the same logic would also mean XRP holders benefit, because these corporate actions give them the opportunity to buy XRP at lower prices than they would have.

However, Rynes disagreed with this argument. He said Schwartz was effectively arguing that XRP holders should see lower prices as a good thing caused by Ripple’s own actions, calling it “elite tier gaslighting.”

Nonetheless, Schwartz stood by his position. He said that when a factor is constant, well-known, and affects the market consistently, it hits buyers and sellers equally. There is no hidden damage being done to one group. Essentially, both sides operate under the same market conditions, which is why he argued the criticism does not hold up.

Are you being deliberately dumb? It’s good for holders because it made the price of XRP go down when they bought it.

A constant factor that is known and understood does not affect holders because whatever effect it has on price, it has equally when they buy and when they sell.

— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) March 16, 2026

Basically, Schwartz believes a known factor affecting price does not automatically harm holders. If that factor keeps the price lower, buyers may also get in at that lower price, amassing more tokens for less. Both the buy and sell sides are working under the same conditions, so the effect balances out.

Critic Says XRP Holders Fund Ripple but Own Nothing 

Notably, the latest argument started when Zach Rynes, a regular XRP critic, suggested that XRP holders essentially fund Ripple while receiving nothing in return. He said Ripple has been straightforward about the fact that it serves its equity shareholders first, and that token holders do not have the same standing.

He also argued that holding XRP does not give people genuine exposure to Ripple’s overall growth. Token holders do not own equity in the company, so they only have a claim to whatever the market values the token at, nothing more.

Rynes further accused Ripple of selling pre-mined XRP to raise money, then using that money to acquire businesses and carry out stock buybacks that benefit shareholders.

XRP Community Defends the Token’s Structure

Responding, an anonymous member of the XRP community argued that critics keep working from the wrong starting point. He pointed out that XRP is not a company stock, and judging it by the standards of one leads to the wrong conclusions.

The commenter stressed that this is true across the board in crypto. Specifically, holding Ethereum does not entitle investors to a share of what Consensys earns. In addition, holding Solana does not come with distributions from Solana Labs. XRP works the same way, and expecting otherwise is disingenuous.