TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Is "XRP" a central bank digital currency (CBDC)?

Fact Check: Is "XRP" a central bank digital currency (CBDC)?

May 9, 2025•by TruthOrFake
✗
VERDICT
False

# Is "XRP" a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)? ## Introduction The claim in question is whether XRP, a digital asset created by Ripple Labs, qual...

Is "XRP" a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)?

Introduction

The claim in question is whether XRP, a digital asset created by Ripple Labs, qualifies as a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). CBDCs are digital forms of fiat currency issued and regulated by central banks, designed to provide a stable and secure alternative to traditional cash. This article will explore the nature of XRP and its relationship to CBDCs, examining various sources for their credibility and relevance to the claim.

What We Know

  1. Definition of CBDC: According to the Federal Reserve, a CBDC is a digital asset that would be the safest form of money available to the public, free from credit or liquidity risk 1. CBDCs are typically issued and controlled by central banks, as highlighted by a Reuters article that emphasizes their role as digital versions of existing fiat currencies 2.

  2. XRP's Functionality: XRP is primarily known as a cryptocurrency that facilitates fast and low-cost cross-border transactions. Ripple has been actively promoting XRP as a bridge currency that can connect different CBDCs across global financial networks 5. The XRP Ledger is designed to support interoperability with various financial systems, which could include CBDCs 6.

  3. Ripple's Engagement with Central Banks: Ripple has developed specific solutions aimed at assisting central banks in creating their own CBDCs. They claim to offer a platform that allows for the issuance, management, and settlement of CBDCs, positioning XRP as a potential component of this infrastructure 37.

  4. Current Developments: As of May 2023, Ripple announced that several countries are exploring the use of the XRP Ledger for their CBDC projects. This indicates a growing interest in integrating XRP technology into national digital currency frameworks 7.

Analysis

Source Evaluation

  • Federal Reserve 1: As a primary source, the Federal Reserve provides a credible definition of CBDCs. However, it does not specifically address XRP, which limits its direct relevance to the claim.

  • Reuters 2: This source is a reputable news organization that provides a straightforward explanation of CBDCs. However, it does not discuss XRP's role or its potential as a CBDC, which is crucial for evaluating the claim.

  • Technology Innovators 3: This source presents Ripple's perspective on CBDCs and XRP's role in their development. However, it is essential to consider that this source may have a pro-Ripple bias, as it promotes Ripple's products and services.

  • XRP Authority 5: This article discusses XRP's potential in cross-border transactions and its integration with CBDCs. While informative, it may also exhibit bias due to its focus on XRP's advantages without addressing potential drawbacks or criticisms.

  • Ripple's Official Blog 6: This source outlines Ripple's initiatives in the CBDC space. As an official communication from Ripple, it is likely to present a favorable view of XRP's role, which could lead to potential conflicts of interest.

  • Finbold 7: This news outlet reports on Ripple's announcements regarding CBDC partnerships. While it provides relevant information, the reliability of Finbold can vary, and it should be cross-referenced with more established sources.

Methodological Considerations

The claim that XRP is a CBDC lacks direct evidence from authoritative sources. While Ripple's initiatives suggest a connection between XRP and CBDCs, the term "CBDC" specifically refers to digital currencies issued by central banks. XRP, as a cryptocurrency, does not fit this definition unless explicitly adopted by a central bank as such.

Furthermore, the sources discussing XRP's potential role in CBDCs often come from Ripple or affiliated entities, which raises questions about objectivity. Independent analyses or reports from central banks or financial authorities would provide a more balanced view.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that XRP is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is false. The key evidence supporting this conclusion includes the definition of CBDCs as digital currencies issued and regulated by central banks, which does not apply to XRP. While Ripple has positioned XRP as a potential bridge for CBDCs and has engaged with central banks, XRP itself remains a cryptocurrency and not a CBDC.

It is important to note that while Ripple's initiatives may indicate a growing interest in integrating XRP technology into CBDC frameworks, this does not equate to XRP being classified as a CBDC. The evidence primarily comes from sources that may have a vested interest in promoting Ripple's products, which limits the objectivity of the information presented.

Additionally, the lack of direct statements from central banks regarding XRP's status as a CBDC further underscores the uncertainty surrounding this claim. More independent analyses and official confirmations would be necessary to provide a clearer picture.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding cryptocurrencies and CBDCs, considering the sources and potential biases involved.

Sources

  1. Federal Reserve. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Retrieved from https://www.federalreserve.gov/central-bank-digital-currency.htm
  2. Reuters. Trump could spur central banks to adopt digital coins: Peacock. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/trump-could-spur-central-banks-adopt-digital-coins-peacock-2025-04-24/
  3. Technology Innovators. The Role of XRP in Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Integration. Retrieved from https://www.technology-innovators.com/the-role-of-xrp-in-central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc-integration/
  4. CBDC Tracker. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Tracker. Retrieved from https://cbdctracker.org/
  5. XRP Authority. How XRP Integrates with Central Banks & CBDCs. Retrieved from https://xrpauthority.com/education/banks-institutions-using-xrp-adoption-use-cases/how-xrp-integrates-with-central-banks-cbdcsexploring-how-xrp-might-connect-with-central-bank-digital-currencies/
  6. Ripple. Ripple Pilots a Private Ledger for Central Banks Launching CBDCs. Retrieved from https://ripple.com/insights/ripple-pilots-a-private-ledger-for-central-banks-launching-cbdcs/
  7. Finbold. Ripple reveals 8 countries building CBDCs on XRP Ledger. Retrieved from https://finbold.com/ripple-reveals-8-countries-building-cbds-on-xrp-ledger/
  8. Atlantic Council. Central Bank Digital Currency Tracker. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/
  9. World Bank. Central Bank Digital Currencies for Cross-Border Payments. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/369001638871862939/pdf/Central-Bank-Digital-Currencies-for-Cross-border-Payments-A-Review-of-Current-Experiments-and-Ideas.pdf
  10. The Currency Analytics. XRP's Potential Role in Central Bank Digital Currencies. Retrieved from https://thecurrencyanalytics.com/altcoins/xrps-potential-role-in-central-bank-digital-currencies-cbdcs-exploring-a-new-era-in-digital-money-71028

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business leaders formally threw their support behind Pierre Poilievre in the upcoming federal election on Saturday, arguing his Conservative Party will best handle Canada’s slowing economic growth. The group of more than 30 current and past executives includes Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau, former RBC Capital Markets CEO Anthony Fell and former Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter. They published an open letter in several Canadian newspapers on Saturday saying Poilievre's plans are best to get the country's economy "back on track." "Productivity has stalled. Economic growth has slowed. Our GDP per capita is shrinking," the letter reads. "Nevertheless, this decline is not inevitable -- and it's not the Canada we know and love." To turn things around, the letter said Canada needs to eliminate barriers to productivity by streamlining permit processes and cutting outdated regulations that prevent investment and job creation. It also said the government needs to be more disciplined with its spending, impose lower taxes to make Canada more competitive and develop the country's natural resources by building pipelines, expanding mining and investing in energy. The letter, which was also signed by former RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust founder Edward Sonshine, Mattamy Homes CEO Peter Gilgan and past Toronto Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey, is one of the strongest shows of support Poilievre has seen from the business community yet. His competitor, Liberal Mark Carney, has spent much of the election campaign, which concludes on April 28 when Canadians go to the polls, touting his experience as leader of the central banks in both Canada and England. He argues that experience leaves him best equipped to address the country's economic woes and tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. The Liberals did not immediately respond to request for comment on the letter. The Conservatives, however, took the missive as a sign that their platform is resonating with the business community. “Pierre Poilievre’s Canada First Economic Action Plan is being recognized as a strong plan to lower taxes and eliminate red tape to unleash our industries and bring home powerful paycheques for our people and a thriving economy," Conservative spokesman Sam Lilly said in a statement. Poilievre revealed earlier this week that his plan is designed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 25 per cent in two years through a "two-for-one" law. The law would see two regulations be repealed for every new one that's enacted and require that every dollar spent on new administrative costs trigger the cutting of two dollars in other areas. Meanwhile, Carney has said he will boost interprovincial trade by removing all exemptions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, develop a new fund to help link natural resource extraction sites with rail lines and roads and create new programs geared toward training workers. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said it was "no surprise" some business leaders are backing Poilievre and Carney because they're giving a tax break to the ultra-wealthy," rather than focusing on "what people actually need—health care, housing, and support when they lose a job." "Canadians are working hard but falling behind," Singh said in a statement. "Wages aren’t keeping up, housing is out of reach, and public services are stretched. The economy isn’t working for most people." This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 12, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business le...

Apr 13, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on which Israel committed egregious atrocities in and around Palestine; it's all about 1948, and it's important to remember this date well. The war and the complete failure of all attempts to achieve a viable peace have pushed Palestine back to this date. The 76 years that have passed have been a fruitless struggle for 'peace'. All they have done is give Israel four decades to reinforce its total control over Palestine. This is all about history. Understanding the struggle for Palestine requires understanding its historical context. The modern history commences with Britain using the Zionists, while simultaneously being utilized by them, to establish an imperial foothold in the Middle East, effectively transforming Israel into the central pillar of a bridge from Egypt and the Nile to Iraq, its oil, and the Gulf. The calculations were devoid of morality, driven solely by self-interest. Britain had no right to cede a portion of the area it was occupying—Palestine—to another occupier, and the UN similarly lacked the authority to do so. The 1947 General Assembly partition resolution was essentially a US resolution anyway; the numbers were fixed by the White House once it became clear that it would fail. Chaim Weizmann, the prominent Zionist leader in London and Washington, requested Truman's intervention. “I am aware of how much abstaining delegations would be swayed by your counsel and the influence of your government,” he informed the president. “I refer to China, Honduras, Colombia, Mexico, Liberia, Ethiopia, Greece. I beg and pray for your decisive intervention at this decisive hour.” Among the countries that needed a push were the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, and France. “We went for it," stated Clark Clifford, Truman’s special counsel, subsequently. “It was because the White House was for it that it went through. I kept the ramrod up the State Department’s butt.” Herschel Johnson, the deputy chief of the US mission at the UN, cried in frustration while speaking to Loy Henderson, a senior diplomat and head of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs, who was a staunch adversary of the construction of a Zionist settler state in Palestine. “Loy, forgive me for breaking down like this,” Johnson stated, “but Dave Niles called us here a couple of days ago and said that the president had instructed him to tell us that, by God, he wanted us to get busy and get all the votes that we possibly could, that there would be hell if the voting went the other way.” In September, UNSCOP (the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) convened an ad hoc committee to evaluate its proposals. The committee consisted of all members of the General Assembly, with subcommittees designated to evaluate the suggestions presented. On November 25, the General Assembly, acting as an ad hoc committee, approved partition with a vote of 25 in favor, 13 against, and 17 abstentions. A two-thirds majority was required for the partition resolution to succeed in the General Assembly plenary session four days later, indicating its impending failure. However, following the White House's endorsement, seven of the 17 abstainers from November 25 voted 'yes' on November 29, resulting in the passage of Resolution 181 (II) with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. Niles, the Zionists' ‘point man’ at the White House, subsequently partnered with Clark Clifford to undermine the State Department's proposal to replace partition with trusteeship for the time being because of the violence threatened in Palestine. Niles was the first member of a series of Zionist lobbyists sent to monitor the presidency from within. Despite their unpopularity and potential resentment, the presidents had no choice but to tolerate their persistent pressure. During John Kennedy's administration, Mike (Myer) Feldman was permitted to oversee all State Department and White House cable concerning the Middle East. Despite internal opposition within the White House, Kennedy perceived Feldman “as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid,” as noted by Seymour Hersh in The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (p. 98). Lyndon Johnson took over Feldman after Kennedy's assassination, granting Israel all its demands without offering anything in return. The transfer of Palestine to a recent settler minority contravened fundamental UN norms, including the right to self-determination. Resistance to Zionism and the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine were significant within the US administration, but it was the man in the White House, influenced by domestic interests (money and votes), who called the shots and has been calling them ever since. Palestine went from British control to American hands, and then to the Zionists. 29 November 1947 - partition plans. 33 voted for, 13 voted against, 10 abstained The desires of the Palestinians were irrelevant to the 'return' of the Jewish people to their ''ancient homeland'', as noted by Arthur Balfour. The fact that Jews could not 'return’ to a land in which they or their ancestors had never lived was equally immaterial. What went on behind closed doors to ensure the establishment of a colonial-settler state in Palestine, contrary to the desires of its populace, represents but one episode in a protracted history of duplicity, deceit, persistent breaches of international law, and violations of fundamental UN principles. The so-called "Palestine problem" has never been a "Palestine problem," but rather a Western and Zionist problem—a volatile combination of the two that the perpetrators are still blaming on their victims. There would be no ambiguity regarding our current situation at the precipice if Western governments and the media held Israel accountable rather than shielding, endorsing, and rationalizing even the most egregious offenses under the pretext of Israel's 'right' to self-defense. It is absurd to propose that a thief has any form of 'right' to 'defend' stolen property. The right belongs to the person fighting for its return, as the Palestinians have been doing daily since 1948. Aside from the 5–6% of land acquired by Zionist purchasing agencies before 1948, Israelis are living on and in stolen property. They will defend it, but they have no 'right' to defend something that, by any legal, moral, historical, or cultural measure, belongs to someone else. This has never been a 'conflict of rights' as 'liberal' Zionists have claimed, because a right is a right and cannot conflict with another right. The real rights in this context are evident, or would be, if they were not persistently suppressed by Western governments and a media that unconditionally safeguards Israel's actions. Although the non-binding UNGA partition resolution of that year did not include a 'transfer' of the Palestinian population, the creation of a Jewish state would have been more challenging without it. Without the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians, the demographic composition of the 'Jewish state' would have included an equal number of Palestinian Muslims and Christians alongside Jews. War was the sole means of getting rid of Palestinian natives; raw force achieved what Theodor Herzl envisioned when he referred to “spiriting” the “penniless population” from their land. Upon its completion, Weizmann expressed excitement regarding this "miraculous simplification of our task." Following 1948, there were massacres in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan; massacres in Lebanon; and wars and assassinations throughout the region and beyond. A second wave of ethnic cleansing succeeded the 1948 one in 1967, and now a third and fourth wave is taking place in Gaza and southern Lebanon, terrorizing and slaughtering town dwellers and villagers into fleeing. https://preview.redd.it/orxl88k6mfoe1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12103a2b560e3af2f72c656e6e39fdbea64caa11 Western governments and the media are facilitating the gradual, covert, illegal, and pseudo-legal erosion of Palestinian life and rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is remarkable how the media constantly discusses October 7 but never talks about any of this critical history. Of course, as an accomplice to one of the biggest crimes of the 20th century, meticulously orchestrated and executed violently, discussing it candidly would entail self-incrimination; thus, it diverts the discourse to alternative subjects—''Hamas terrorism'', ''October 7''—anything to distract from Israel's egregious war crimes. This distortion of the narrative has persisted since the PLO and the popular fronts of the 1960s were labeled as terrorists, while Israel was portrayed as a plucky small state merely defending itself. The Poles, the French, and other Europeans opposed the Nazi occupation. The distinction is clear: resistance to occupation by Palestinians is labeled as terrorism, while state-sponsored terrorism is characterized as 'self-defense.' This distortion of truth has been outrageously amplified following the pager/walkie-talkie terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel in Lebanon. Western governments and their connected media entities have rationalized and even lauded them. The Palestinians demonstrated their readiness to transcend the events of 1948 and to make significant concessions for peace —22 percent of the land in exchange for relinquishing 78 percent—provided Israel would engage sincerely with the rights of the 1948 generation; nevertheless, Israel ignored their offers contemptuously. The Palestinians were willing to share Jerusalem, but Israel was not receptive to this proposition. It had consistently desired all of Palestine. The Netanyahu government, seeing no need for such concealment, now unveils the truth that the 1990s 'peace process' and previous proposals from various diplomatic entities obscured. It explicitly states its desires, regardless of the opinions of others, including former partners, which align with the initial aspirations of the Zionist movement: all of Palestine, ideally devoid of Palestinians. Israel's refusal to cede any portion of Palestine has blurred the distinctions between the pre- and post-1967 eras. There are no delineating green lines between occupied and unoccupied territories, only the red lines that Israel transgresses daily. Deprived of even a small portion of their homeland, Palestinians and their supporters are compelled to resort to resistance and are resolute in their pursuit of reclaiming all of 1948 Palestine, rather than merely the limited fraction they previously would have accepted. Western countries facilitate and even promote Israel's existence outside international law by providing arms and financial assistance. Israel's occupation, massacres, and assassinations occur because of Western governments' tacit approval and encouragement. If Israel commits genocide, it is due to Western nations' acquiescence and implicit endorsement. If Israel is condemning itself to endless war with those whose fundamental rights it has infringed upon for the past 76 years, it is due to Western governments' acceptance. They have allowed Israel to push the world to the brink of regional and even global conflict. Israel is chaotic, yet it has never been orderly. The West has also permitted this, and it will face consequences.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on wh...

Mar 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Please, provide me with your postal address and I will mail you a prove of my bank transfer.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Please, provide me with your postal address and I will mail you a prove of my bank transfer.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Please, provide me with your postal address and I will mail you a prove of my bank transfer....

May 25, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is GCash a bank?
False

Fact Check: Is GCash a bank?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is GCash a bank?

May 25, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is "XRP" dead?
False

Fact Check: Is "XRP" dead?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is "XRP" dead?

May 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is "XRP" a stablecoin?
False

Fact Check: Is "XRP" a stablecoin?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is "XRP" a stablecoin?

May 9, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks