Tillman at Arch Public: I Was An XRP Believer Until This Changed Everything

A recent statement shared by Scott Melker, host of The Wolf of All Streets podcast, has drawn attention to differing interpretations surrounding XRP and stablecoins in payments and asset settlement. Melker referenced comments by Tillman of Arch Public, who discussed why his view on XRP’s role in cross-border payments shifted after the emergence of stablecoins. The remarks were followed by contrasting responses from members of the digital asset community, who argued that XRP’s function remains distinct and broader in scope.

Tillman’s Position on Stablecoins and Settlement

In the clip highlighted by Melker, Tillman explained that he once supported XRP due to its intended use in cross-border payments. However, he stated that the introduction of stablecoins changed his assessment of the space. He argued that, in his view, the value of a settlement asset depends on its ability to maintain parity with the asset being settled against.

According to him, anything without par value was less efficient as a settlement layer compared to assets designed to remain pegged, such as stablecoins. He pointed to stablecoins as better aligned for settlement due to this parity, suggesting that their structure reduced the need for assets like XRP in payment flow scenarios.

Community Responses Emphasize Cost and Structural Role

Some users challenge the premise that stablecoins inherently serve as a superior settlement mechanism. Commenter Joshua D. Larkin noted that stablecoins do not operate on a single native ledger, meaning they are issued across multiple chains with varying transaction costs. He pointed out that some networks hosting stablecoins have higher fees than the XRP Ledger, raising questions about efficiency when measured through speed and cost.

Another commenter, RLFRS, emphasized that stablecoins are typically payment instruments issued by private companies or institutions. He argued that XRP’s role is broader than stablecoin payment, suggesting that XRP acts as liquidity to bridge multiple types of assets, including tokenized commodities and financial instruments, not just fiat currency pairs. He highlighted pathfinding on the XRP Ledger, describing how it is designed to locate optimal liquidity routes to facilitate conversion between diverse tokenized assets.

In this perspective, stablecoins may function as transactional tools, but XRP is positioned as the mechanism that enables different asset classes to connect efficiently.

Ongoing Reassessment of Digital Asset Roles

Melker’s post underscored a clear division in how digital asset participants interpret the utility and future of XRP, compared to stablecoins. While Tillman framed stablecoins as a replacement for XRP in cross-border settlement, others maintained that XRP’s utility extends into liquidity and asset-bridging functions not addressed by stablecoins alone. The discussion reflects an ongoing reassessment of digital asset roles as tokenization and settlement infrastructure continue to develop.