In a recent video, a popular wealth building & crypto expert warned that “most people who own XRP don’t actually understand what they’re holding,” arguing that investors are judging the asset with the wrong playbook.
Rather than treating XRP as a stock substitute or a typical speculative token, Kamilah Stevenson frames it as financial “plumbing” built for moments of severe liquidity stress — the kind of market conditions most traders prefer not to think about.
XRP As Neutral Settlement “Plumbing” Not a Speculative Star
The analyst’s core claim is blunt: XRP “was designed as a neutral settlement asset,” not to “be impressive on a chart” or “excite retail investors.”
Sponsored
Neutral, in this context, means it does not belong to any one country, banking system, or pair of counterparties that must trust each other. Its intended role is to sit beneath banks, clearing houses, and even sovereign systems as infrastructure.
That framing directly challenges popular narratives that XRP is primarily a fast, cheap payment token or a pure speculative bet.
Those takes aren’t entirely wrong, the host concedes, but they are “incomplete.” The token is positioned as a tool for final settlement when institutions “have to settle… cleanly, finally, and without introducing more risk into the system,” especially when trust is thin.
The Liquidity Assumption Most XRP Holder Narratives Ignore
A key target of criticism is the widely repeated view that XRP can stay cheap because it is reused on demand. In that model, institutions don’t need to hold large balances; they can simply tap liquidity, settle a payment, and send the XRP back into circulation.
The logic works “in a stable environment,” Kamilah Stevenson says — when markets are calm, exchanges function normally, and “liquidity is always available when requested.”
The analyst argues that this assumption breaks down in real crises, when liquidity is hoarded, access is restricted, and timing — not notional value — becomes the real problem.
Drawing a parallel with 2008, the video suggests financial systems often “buy time” rather than fix underlying issues, and that stress eventually forces a structural decision. XRP, in this view, is designed for those stress points, not for “comfort” conditions.
Why a Higher XRP Price Could Be a Feature, Not Hype
This stress-tested framing leads to a different take on price. The Kamilah Stevenson criticizes “market cap logic” as assuming smooth trading and orderly markets.
Under pressure, she says, assets don’t re-rate based on sentiment; they “reprice based on what works.” At scale, a low price per unit can create friction: “The cheaper the asset, the more units you need, and the more units you need, the more strain you put on settlement.”
In that scenario, a higher XRP price serves as “compression” — moving more value with fewer units when systems are under duress. If XRP is never truly needed, it can remain “suppressed in price” and “very boring.”
But if it is, Ms. Stevenson expects it “will not behave like assets people are used to measuring with retail frameworks,” moving because “the system required it,” not because holders “believed in it.”
For crypto investors, the video’s message is less about short-term charts and more about positioning for edge cases: custody, tax planning, and whether an asset built for breakdowns belongs in a long-horizon portfolio that assumes some part of the current plumbing will eventually fail.
People Also Ask:
The video explicitly says XRP is not trying to replace banks but to operate underneath them as settlement infrastructure.
The focus is on long-term, stress-driven use cases, not short-term trading or speculative price targets.
Because participants use different assumptions — speculative asset, payment token, or infra — without agreeing on what problem XRP was actually designed to solve.
