I think the sense that Ripple is centralised is due to the XRP owned by Ripple. The company owning millions of XRP will undoubtedly lead some to think that XRP can be 'manipulated' in favour of what Ripple thinks is best for their platform.
That's why the article presents an interesting premise...Unlike other coins where they are all there for the taking, company and commoner alike, XRP was created to compliment their platform...
XRP isn't centralised, but it is in all but name
I can understand that point to an extent although I'm not sure I agree with it in full. So what happens in 2 years or 24 escrow cycles?
What if then they suddenly they own 40%..
Is it still centralized then?
or 4 years?
and they own 20%?
or 6 and they own 1%.
Where does the nonsense end?
When is it suddenly not centralized based on their holdings?
That's a fair point actually, and one I can't answer, thank you for presenting that view point.
I would say this, hypothetically speaking...
XRP is a different creature to other cryptos for the fact that, right off the bat, a very large stake is owned by a company (effectively).
Your illustrative development of them owning various quantities is an an interesting one.
Perhaps the word 'centralised' is not correct...although the premise of it is, namely, that the direction of XRP can be influenced towards a certain direction if said holders wanted to because of their vast ownership of coins. By definition, this is not an organic development but a manufactured one, one primarily based on the commercial viability of the platform calculated and defined by a small group of individuals and therefore, 'centralised'.
However, this is my issue with crypto in the long run, it's ability to remain 'ethical'. Because although XRP has the dynamic of a lot of coins being owned by a relative few, the same can be true of other cryptos and their so called 'whales'. These creatures can also influence a coin one way or another, and have done so before, normally for no other reason than to create more money for themselves during a volatility created by them.
This is what I personally find interesting with this, my mind changing a little due to the very active discussion this post generated. Crypto is like the wild west at the moment! Will it be able to operate the way many envision it to, 'decentralised', either in name or action...or, would it become nothing more than a tool for the same institutions we have currently, albeit run with blockchain tech and clever math instead of a body?
I would love to read a post made by yourself putting your thoughts in these comments together, it's a good case
I actually may take this up here shortly. I appreciate the idea. I also get where you are coming from. I really do understand the ethical part as well. I will mull this over and i am sure you will see a post shortly here from me on it
. thanks