“Reject Centralized Blockchains”: Analyst Slams Ripple, Hedera, Stellar & Algorand
Justin Bons, CEO and founder of Cyber Capital, posted a long thread on X urging crypto holders to reject what he calls “centralized blockchains.” He grouped together XRP (XRPL), Canton, Stellar, Hedera, and Algorand, arguing that any permissioned element defeats crypto’s core promise.
Bons’ main point is simple: decentralization is not a vibe, it’s a property. If a network requires permission or relies on a curated set of validators, he sees it as a form of authority. From there, he makes a hard-line conclusion: support fully permissionless networks, and pressure everything else to decentralize.
- What Bons Is Claiming
- The Pushback and the More Useful Question
- The Broader Debate: Ideals vs Adoption
What Bons Is Claiming
Bons targets each network for how consensus and validation are structured.
For XRP, he focuses on the Unique Node List model. In his view, a centrally published validator list creates a soft permission layer, because high overlap is required for the network to stay coherent. He frames that as control-by-default, even if users can technically choose their own validators.
He makes a similar argument about Stellar, pointing to its recommended validator set. For Hedera and Canton, he calls out permissioned validator sets more directly. Algorand gets a more detailed critique: he acknowledges that participation nodes are open, but argues that relay node permissioning still matters, even if newer networking changes reduce their gatekeeping role.
He also lays down a strict classification of consensus: Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, or Proof of Authority. If a chain is not secured by stake or work, he labels it authority-based by definition. That framing is designed to create a clear line in the sand. For Bons, anything less than fully permissionless is a deal breaker.
The Pushback and the More Useful Question
Not everyone agreed with his framing, especially from the XRP community.
One well-known XRP voice responded, calling out what they see as a misunderstanding of XRPL consensus. They pointed out that Ripple is only one UNL among a broader set and claimed it sits within “a list of 34 and growing.” Their broader accusation was reputational: a profile that calls itself “Crypto Researcher Since 2013” should not, in their words, “make stuff up,” even if bias exists.
That rebuttal matters because it shows the real issue: this argument often collapses complex systems into a single label. “Permissioned” and “permissionless” are useful terms, but they can also hide the nuance that actually determines risk.
A better way to read this whole clash is to ask two practical questions.
First, who can realistically influence consensus outcomes over time? That includes validator diversity, governance pressure points, and the social layer: who the ecosystem follows when something breaks.
Second, what trade-offs are being made, and for what purpose? Some networks optimize for credible neutrality above all else. Others optimize for settlement speed, enterprise compliance, or predictable governance. Those are not the same mission, and they do not attract the same users.
Read also: The Next Few Days Will Decide Whether XRP Price Breaks $2 or Falls Back to $1
The Broader Debate: Ideals vs Adoption
Bons frames institutional comfort with semi-permissioned systems as a weakness. He believes large institutions prefer controlled networks because they are uneasy with open systems. In his view, that mindset mirrors the early internet, where incumbents resisted change and newcomers built the future.
There is truth in part of that argument. Fully permissionless systems offer censorship resistance and credible neutrality. Those properties are powerful and difficult to replicate.
At the same time, the real world operates on trade-offs.
Many enterprises demand predictable governance, legal accountability, and performance guarantees. Networks like Hedera and Canton were designed with enterprise use cases in mind. XRP and Stellar focus on settlement efficiency and compliance-friendly rails. These design choices reflect a different philosophy, not necessarily a deception.
Bons is defending an ideological purity test. That’s valuable as a warning label. It forces investors to look at trust assumptions, not just marketing. But the XRP response is also fair in spirit: critiques need precision, because decentralization is not a one-line checkbox.
In the end, this is less about picking a “good chain” and more about understanding what is being trusted, who holds influence, and what kind of future each network is built to serve.