All news is rigorously fact-checked and reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.
- Coinbase is facing renewed allegations that XRP’s listing was delayed over a disputed financial arrangement.
- Ripple CTO David Schwartz says the exchange held back XRP despite seeing a business case for listing it.
Coinbase is facing renewed scrutiny over its past handling of XRP after Ripple CTO David Schwartz revisited claims that the exchange effectively ran a pay-to-play listing process.
According to Schwartz, Coinbase chose not to list XRP for an extended period even though the business case appeared obvious. The core of the dispute, as he framed it, was simple enough. Ripple allegedly refused to pay a listing fee requested by the exchange, and XRP remained off the platform for months as a result.
A listing delay with a commercial edge
The allegation adds a more transactional layer to a debate that has followed XRP for years. In an X post, Schwartz said Coinbase’s position was not merely about risk, timing, or internal caution. He suggested the delay came down to money, and to Ripple’s unwillingness at the time to meet the financial terms being sought.
That version matters because it shifts the narrative. For a long stretch, the absence of XRP on Coinbase had been read largely through the lens of broader exchange policy and, later, regulatory sensitivity. Schwartz’s account points somewhere less abstract. A listing, he implied, was possible earlier, just not on Ripple’s terms.
What Schwartz says changed inside Coinbase
Schwartz also claimed Coinbase indicated XRP might have been listed sooner if Ripple had not existed at all. That remark, if read literally, suggests the exchange saw Ripple itself as part of the complication rather than the token alone.
Over time, though, the standoff appears to have softened. Schwartz said Ripple eventually reached a financial agreement with Coinbase, allowing the listing to proceed. That detail does not settle the larger argument, but it does suggest the impasse was resolved commercially rather than philosophically.
The episode has now re-entered public discussion at a moment when exchange listing standards, token issuer influence, and backroom commercial arrangements are once again drawing closer attention across the crypto market.
