Australian lawyer and XRP commentator Bill Morgan has drawn fresh attention after calling on Ripple to scale back how much XRP it re-locks from its monthly 1 billion escrow releases. He argues that speeding up the path to full circulation would strengthen XRP’s case as a hard-money-style asset and help remove the lingering supply overhang that continues to weigh on sentiment.

While the concept is not new, Morgan’s latest framing intensifies the discussion. Ripple’s CTO Emeritus has already signaled clear limits on how far the company is willing to alter its escrow structure.

With roughly 32.74 billion XRP still locked and the current release design implying about a nine-year timeline to full circulation, the underlying mechanics give structure to Morgan’s argument. The debate now centers on whether the supply overhang is materially restrictive—and whether Ripple has both the incentive and ability to compress the timeline.

How Ripple’s escrow system works

Ripple introduced its escrow system in 2017 by locking 55 billion XRP into 55 on-chain contracts, each releasing 1 billion XRP at the start of every month. The goal was to ensure predictable, transparent issuance and prevent sudden supply shocks from Ripple’s holdings.

In practice, the system operates as a rolling mechanism. Ripple uses what it needs for operations and institutional distribution, then re-locks the remaining XRP into new escrow contracts, effectively extending the release schedule month by month.

This structure produces three key effects. Reducing relocks would shorten the timeline to full circulation. Faster issuance could reduce concerns about hidden or deferred supply. And a fully circulating supply is often seen as more attractive to institutional investors who prefer clear, fixed token economics over uncertain future emissions.

Morgan has previously defended the escrow model against claims that it suppresses price. He has also highlighted that XRP still rallied from around $0.50 to above $3.00 between late 2024 and early 2025 despite ongoing monthly releases. His current position focuses on accelerating what he views as a legitimate and structured distribution process.

David Schwartz’s opposing view

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has not supported accelerating escrow releases and has firmly rejected more aggressive proposals, including burning the escrowed XRP entirely.

He has pointed to examples like Stellar’s token burn, arguing that supply reduction tends to create only short-lived price reactions rather than sustained valuation gains. In his view, Ripple’s current system—relocking unused XRP—is intentional and designed to maintain predictability and market stability.

This perspective aligns with Ripple’s broader escrow philosophy, which treats controlled issuance as a feature rather than a flaw. Any acceleration would require weighing potential benefits against the risk of increased short-term selling pressure, a trade-off Ripple has not signaled willingness to pursue.

Recent regulatory milestones, including MiCA-related approvals in Europe, further underscore Ripple’s focus on compliance and predictable supply dynamics as part of its institutional strategy.

What the debate says about XRP’s identity

At a deeper level, the disagreement reflects two competing visions of XRP’s role. One view, aligned with Morgan, sees full circulation as essential to a “hard money” narrative where value is driven purely by demand. The other sees Ripple’s controlled release schedule as critical to maintaining institutional confidence and orderly market structure.

A third concern sits beneath both positions: increasing circulating supply without matching demand growth could translate directly into additional sell pressure. Current price action does not clearly suggest that demand is strong enough to absorb a significantly faster release schedule without impact.

In the end, the debate highlights a broader identity question for XRP—whether controlled supply is a long-term strength that supports adoption, or a constraint that delays the asset’s transition into full market maturity.