Robert @XamanWallet

Exciting milestone for @Ripple in Australia! 🇦🇺 Ripple is obtaining an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL). As we continue to bridge TradFi with the next gen of digital infrastructure, regulatory compliance remains the foundation of everything we build: on.ripple.com/4bnSCs9 With this license, we are doubling down on our commitment to Aussie financial institutions and enterprises, providing a fully regulated, end-to-end platform to move value faster and more efficiently than ever before.

Very strong demand for XRP yield through @XamanWallet. We are working to meet the conditions required to raise the cap and allow more users to participate. This was an early glimpse of the Flare Smart Accounts effect.

We'll have a lot more to show you very, very soon. From the most seamless trading tools to advanced solutions to engage with XRPL DeFi. Xaman users will be able to trade $XRP and other XRPL assets like never before. Built by the team at @XRPLLabs. Stay tuned.

Let me make this very clear: Big Banks (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.) are lobbying overtime to block Americans from getting higher yields on their savings—while trying to block any rewards or perks from being given to customers. These banks, and others, pay rock-bottom rates on standard savings (often 0.01%–0.05% APY), even as the Fed pays them 4% or more. This massive spread fuels record profits, with almost none passed back to their customers / everyday depositors. Today, the banks are desperately targeting crypto/stablecoins, where platforms plan to offer 4–5%+ yields or rewards. The ABA and other lobbyists are spending millions trying to ban or restrict those yields via bills like the Clarity Act, crying “fairness” and using words like "stability"—when it's really about protecting their low-rate monopoly and preventing deposit flight. This is anti-retail, anti-consumer, and straight-up anti-American. Next time you see a big bank dropping billions on a shiny new Midtown Manhattan HQ, you know exactly where that money comes from: the non-existent interest rate they “pay” you! Fortunately, the big banks are losing this fight as customers wake up to the games… @worldlibertyfi

About three weeks ago I posted an amendment that would resolve a locked-out multi sign setup, causing one of our community members to be locked out of 50k XRP. If we allow tech to bail on users this way, we're failing the ecosystem (in my opinion). Three weeks later not much has happened. There's a proposal for a different approach, that (imo) doesn't cut it. Why? There are a few approaches to fixing XRPL accounts that get stuck because their signers independently changed their own key setup: - Ban invalid signer configs at transaction time. Doesn't work. The lockout happens across multiple accounts over time, each transaction was valid when submitted. You can't prevent it without restricting what people do with their own keys. - (Counterproposal by Ripple staff) Let a disabled master key still work as a signer on someone else's account. Gets the job done for already-stuck accounts but breaks a core assumption: disabled means disabled. If you turned off your master key because it leaked, you don't want it suddenly usable again in some other context. - (Our approach) Nested multi-sign. Walk the signer-of-signer chain recursively, detect cycles, relax quorum where needed. Recovers stuck accounts without changing what "disabled" means. DoS concerns are real but solvable with a global signature verification cap per transaction (Batch already allows 288 sig verifications today, nested multi-sign caps at 64). I strongly believe option 3 is the right path. It's the only one that actually fixes things without weakening security guarantees. PR: github.com/XRPLF/rippled/… XLS: github.com/XRPLF/XRPL-Sta… ⏳

About three weeks ago I posted an amendment that would resolve a locked-out multi sign setup, causing one of our community members to be locked out of 50k XRP. If we allow tech to bail on users this way, we're failing the ecosystem (in my opinion). Three weeks later not much has happened. There's a proposal for a different approach, that (imo) doesn't cut it. Why? There are a few approaches to fixing XRPL accounts that get stuck because their signers independently changed their own key setup: - Ban invalid signer configs at transaction time. Doesn't work. The lockout happens across multiple accounts over time, each transaction was valid when submitted. You can't prevent it without restricting what people do with their own keys. - (Counterproposal by Ripple staff) Let a disabled master key still work as a signer on someone else's account. Gets the job done for already-stuck accounts but breaks a core assumption: disabled means disabled. If you turned off your master key because it leaked, you don't want it suddenly usable again in some other context. - (Our approach) Nested multi-sign. Walk the signer-of-signer chain recursively, detect cycles, relax quorum where needed. Recovers stuck accounts without changing what "disabled" means. DoS concerns are real but solvable with a global signature verification cap per transaction (Batch already allows 288 sig verifications today, nested multi-sign caps at 64). I strongly believe option 3 is the right path. It's the only one that actually fixes things without weakening security guarantees. PR: github.com/XRPLF/rippled/… XLS: github.com/XRPLF/XRPL-Sta… ⏳