Why David Schwartz Says $100 XRP Isn't Backed by Market Conviction

Every bull cycle brings the same narrative: XRP heading to $100. It sounds compelling on paper. But David Schwartz, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer and one of the most respected voices in the XRP community, cuts through this with a single, undeniable observation. He doesn’t dismiss the idea emotionally. He dismantles it with probability and capital behavior.

The core of Schwartz’s argument is straightforward: If rational market participants genuinely believed there was even a 10% probability of XRP reaching $100 within a few years, today’s market would look entirely different. The current price of $1.38 (as of February 2026) would never sustain. Sellers sitting at these levels would face immediate buying pressure. Informed investors with real conviction would accumulate aggressively, draining available supply and pushing price discovery upward ahead of the narrative. Yet that’s not occurring. The market remains calm below $10. The absence of that buying behavior speaks louder than any price prediction.

The Gap Between Words and Capital Allocation

Schwartz isn’t making an emotional or defensive argument—he’s describing basic market mechanics. Financial markets are made of millions of participants allocating real capital based on genuine beliefs. If enough participants assigned meaningful odds to a $100 outcome, their behavior would shift the price instantly. They would bid aggressively at $2, $3, $5. Rational capital chases probability when the odds are favorable.

Instead, what we observe is a disconnect between narrative and action. Many people like the idea of $100 XRP. They discuss it online, share predictions, build models. But they’re not buying in substantial size with conviction at current levels. That gap—between what the market says and what it actually does—is where price discovery truly lives. The market is not asleep. It’s simply not assigning those odds.

Market Rationality vs. Hype Cycles

Schwartz also pushes back on the broader criticism that crypto prices are mostly irrational or driven by manipulation. His perspective is more nuanced: most prices are fairly rational most of the time. They reflect a balance between upside potential, regulatory risk, adoption timelines, competitive threats, and genuine uncertainty. Major bull runs do happen, but they typically emerge from unpredicted events—regulatory breakthroughs, macroeconomic shifts, or structural changes in capital flows.

For XRP specifically, much of its future depends on forces outside its control: payments adoption rates, institutional usage growth, and regulatory clarity around digital assets. These don’t move on predictable schedules. The market prices that uncertainty into every daily close. Waiting for proof at scale is rational, not lazy.

Utility Remains Steady—But Utility Alone Doesn’t Price $100

What Schwartz emphasizes is that XRPL’s core utility has never disappeared. Payments settlement. Asset exchange. Cross-border liquidity. That infrastructure continues operating regardless of price debates or bull cycles. But here’s the critical point: utility doesn’t force valuation. The market waits for adoption evidence that matches the price.

XRP’s value equation is straightforward: solve for real-world payment volume, institutional usage, and regulatory acceptance. Once those variables shift materially, price could follow. But the market reasonably refuses to price in a $100 valuation before seeing that proof at scale.

Reading What the Market Is Actually Saying

At its core, Schwartz’s point comes down to this: price isn’t a promise or a dream. It’s a probability-weighted collective guess updated constantly by market participants with capital on the line. Anyone can run the math. Adjust the target price. Change your assumed probability. Extend the timeframe. The math often lands in the same place.

The market is voting with capital right now. And at current odds, it’s not voting for $100. That doesn’t mean $100 is impossible—it means the market doesn’t assign it meaningful near-term probability. Anyone bullish on that outcome should ask themselves honestly: Do my actions reflect that belief? Or am I saying one thing while capital does another? That’s the uncomfortable question Schwartz’s logic forces every investor to answer.