I. A new player in town

Bitcoin is extraordinary, truly the first system to create a digital record of value that cannot be altered. That alone is groundbreaking, and even more remarkable is its operational model: it requires no trust in anyone. Every node independently computes balances, independently verifies transactions, and independently rejects anything invalid. The system works because it assumes nothing and trusts no one. In engineering terms, it achieves trustless consensus at a global scale .

But this level of trustlessness comes with trade-offs. When you submit a transaction to Bitcoin, you typically wait around 7–10 minutes for confirmation. Fees average roughly 1.50–2.00 USD, and during busy periods they can climb to 5–10 USD or more. These constraints are not flaws, they are intentional. Bitcoin sacrifices speed and cost in order to maintain absolute neutrality, decentralisation, and independence from any coordinating authority.

Yet an interesting possibility emerges if you introduce some minimal, structured assumptions about how validators would behave, or in other words if you trust something a little. You unlock an entirely different design space. Suddenly, a blockchain can confirm transactions in 3–4 seconds, at a cost of fractions of a cent, and because the system is not restricted by Bitcoin's minimalism, it can support far richer functionality. You can embed a decentralised exchange directly into the protocol, issue NFTs, other fungible tokens etc..

This was the insight of two engineers, David Schwartz and Arthur Britto. They understood Bitcoin as deeply as anyone, appreciated its brilliance, and also recognised its limitations. Their vision was to design a ledger that preserves decentralisation but introduces just enough trust to unlock extraordinary performance and capability. The result is one of the most innovative systems in modern computing: the XRP Ledger, or XRPL.

II. The edge of the XRPL

The XRPL achieves the above by replacing Bitcoins Proof-of-Work security with the idea that you could get consensus about which transactions are valid from a set of validators that you yourself choose. You would choose this list based on the fact that these validators are independent organisations with no shared incentives to collude except that they all desire a highly efficient, expertly designed blockchain which is also (importantly) honest.

Currently, the recommended validator list includes a diverse set of entities, universities, crypto exchanges, independent blockchain experts, and other private companies. In total, there are roughly thirty validators on the list. The core security assumption is simple: it is highly unlikely that all these organisations, distributed across different sectors and jurisdictions, would collude to validate fraudulent transactions. And if any validator were to behave maliciously, the operators who run XRPL infrastructure (the servers that listen to validator votes) could remove that validator from their own trusted lists.

Importantly, XRPL validators do not earn transaction fees. This creates an unusual and interesting incentive structure. Rather than positioning validators to profit by "taxing" activity on the network, the XRPL model makes it more rational for validators to support the ecosystem by building useful products, services, and applications. In other words, the incentive is aligned with fostering real utility, not extracting value from transaction throughput.

Let's briefly surface the main differences between the Bitcoin and the XRPL, in terms of how they function. The differences on function can be best be categorised into two areas.

1. Speed and Cost
   Bitcoin was intentionally designed to prioritise security, decentralisation, and predictability above all else. Its ten-minute block interval and global competition for block production make the system robust but slow. Under normal conditions, a transaction may take anywhere from several minutes to over an hour to be fully confirmed, especially when the network is congested. Fees fluctuate based on demand, and during busy periods they can rise significantly. This is a direct consequence of Bitcoin's architecture: slow, deliberate block creation ensures high resistance to manipulation, but it also limits throughput.
   
   The XRPL was built with a different philosophy. Its consensus algorithm closes ledgers roughly every three to five seconds, enabling near-instant settlement. Fees on the XRPL are extremely low, often a fraction of a cent, because the network does not involve mining or competitive block production. Instead, trusted validators reach agreement quickly and deterministically. This makes the XRPL better suited for high-volume, low-cost use cases such as payments, token issuance, and frequent on-ledger operations.
2. Programmability
   Bitcoin's scripting language is intentionally restrictive. It doesn't allow for complex logic, in order to minimise attack surfaces and to keep transaction validation simple. As a result, Bitcoin cannot natively support other fungible tokens, NFTs, or advanced application logic without relying on external layers built on top.
   
   The XRPL, by contrast, incorporates programmability directly into the protocol. It natively supports other fungible tokens, NFTs, a built-in marketplace (Decentralised Exchange or DEX) and many other features. Moreover, emerging features like smart contracts introduce lightweight logic, allowing developers to extend the ledger's behaviour safely and predictably.

Bitcoin is like a city where, to prevent burglary, every house must install an unpickable lock on every door and window, and every citizen must personally check every lock themselves.

This makes the city incredibly secure, but also slow and expensive. In the real world, we don't rely only on unbreakable locks. We rely on police, courts, social norms, and legal consequences. These extra layers reduce the need for hyper-paranoid engineering.

So while Bitcoin's "check-every-lock" model is brilliant, it is not the only way to create safety in a ledger system. Bitcoin optimises for worst-case adversaries. XRPL optimises for real-world institutions that face legal, reputational, and economic consequences. And once you engage the XRPL's safety model, a whole new world presents itself.

This is why the XRPL has been chosen to be the home of Sapiens NFTs.