- Thomas Silkjær criticizes EVM as a challenge to XRPL, neither helping to attract developers nor offering significant benefits.
- On-chain data shows increase in XRPL transactions, suggesting growing activity despite concerns about EVM’s utility.
Thomas Silkjær, head of the XRPL department, expressed that the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) has posed the biggest challenge to the XRPL protocol. This opinion came in response to comments indicating that XRP has not been properly utilized in the ledger.
For those unfamiliar, XRP is Ripple’s native token, and XRPL is the decentralized public blockchain that enables XRP transactions, smart contract development and international payments.
For me, protocols with no other native token but (wrapped) XRP 😊
— Vet 🏴☠️ (@Vet_X0) February 10, 2024
According to Silkjær, XRP blocked on the EVM sidechain is no different from XRP embedded on another chain. However, he mentioned that the EVM sidechain does not help attract new developers to Ripple, nor does it offer significant benefits to XRPL in terms of functionality.
Although Ripple, through its RippleX development division, initiated trials of the EVM-compatible sidechain in October 2022, making it easier for users to trade Ethereum by bridging through XRPL, Silkjær stressed that his perspective is personal and may not be shared byRipple’s development team.
This development might be unexpected for the crypto community, especially considering that in 2023, the RippleX team announced that EVM aimed to make XRPL more accessible to developers and simplify access to Decentralized Finance (DeFi) for XRP users.
However, following a statement from one of its members, it appears that XRPL has not yet achieved this goal. Despitethis, XRPL’s on-chain data indicates an increase in the total number of XRP issued in the ledger since December, suggesting an increase in transactions on the network.
In addition, the number of new XRP trust lines created daily has risen to 1526, showing that the protocol is busy and users are active.
While Silkjær’s perspective may not match these findings, it is possible that he is referring specifically to development activity rather than user participation. If that is the case, his concerns may have merit. What cannot be determined with certainty, however, is whether EVM is the central problem.
