Market capitalization arguments are a central point of contention in debates about XRP's long-term price potential, especially when targets reach double or triple digits. Critics often highlight the altcoin's large circulating supply—approximately 60.7 billion tokens—and compare its implied valuation to major banks and corporations to dismiss higher price scenarios. However, analysts like Crypto Luke argue this framework fundamentally misunderstands XRP's purpose.
Crypto Luke recently pushed back against valuing XRP using the same logic applied to banks such as BNY Mellon. He notes that banks process trillions in volume but their market caps are based on earnings, risk, and regulation, not the total value flowing through their systems. "Banks act as intermediaries that move other people’s money and earn fees along the way," he explains. XRP, in contrast, is designed as a liquidity bridge and settlement asset, not a company. Therefore, applying equity-style market cap comparisons leads to incomplete conclusions.
The core design question, as noted by experts, is not the volume moved but "how much capital must exist to support that movement without pre-funding." This perspective challenges the assumption that XRP's market cap must be interpreted like a traditional company's. Analyst Pantoja further dismissed the idea that market cap is a barrier to XRP reaching $1,000, stating that long-term valuation will hinge on real-world adoption of its underlying technology for cross-border settlements.
At a hypothetical price of $10, XRP's market cap would be around $607 billion. While this seems large, analysts point out it's not impossible given Bitcoin's current market cap of approximately $1.79 trillion. This weakens blanket statements that XRP cannot reach certain price levels simply due to implied valuation.
Simultaneously, speculation is growing that XRP's price may be moving slower than expected due to its potential role in global financial infrastructure. Analyst Jesse from Apex Crypto Insights suggested that if XRP were openly positioned as a global settlement layer too early, a price surge could complicate institutional preparation and regulation. "They don't want the price to run too early," he said, indicating that banks and regulators may be testing systems quietly.
Discussions also focus on projects by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) exploring cross-border payments and wholesale CBDCs, which use terms like "unified ledger"—a concept XRP supporters argue resembles the XRP Ledger's architecture. Furthermore, connections between Ripple-linked firms and major infrastructure providers like the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) have been noted, though no official confirmation exists. Jesse clarified that "atomic settlement" means a transaction settles fully or not at all, reducing risk and potentially necessitating a neutral bridge asset like XRP in illiquid currency markets.
For now, these ideas remain speculative, with no official statements from Ripple, the BIS, or major financial institutions. The debate underscores a belief among some holders that the technology is being positioned for future use while its price remains contained during regulatory and institutional development.
