SOIL has rejected claims that XRP Ledger users were used as exit liquidity after an on-chain analyst linked multiple token sales to wallets that allegedly received SOIL directly from the issuer.
Summary
- SOIL denied claims that its XRP Ledger launch used community liquidity for insider token sales.
- An on-chain analyst alleged issuer-linked wallets sold SOIL into XRPL liquidity, a claim the project disputes.
- The controversy comes as SOIL prepares to adopt XRPL’s proposed native lending framework pending amendment approval.
According to June 26 X posts published by on-chain analyst Skeptic, blockchain data indicates that much of the early selling activity came from wallets that had received SOIL directly from the issuer rather than from ordinary market participants.
The analyst argued that the transaction pattern suggested issuer-linked distribution followed by immediate sales into XRPL liquidity instead of organic price discovery.
Skeptic highlighted several wallet addresses to support the claim. One wallet reportedly received about 68,766 SOIL across 20 transactions before exchanging roughly that amount for approximately 11,457 XRP. Another allegedly received 17,098 SOIL and later sold nearly 17,998 SOIL for around 6,769 XRP, while a third wallet received 20,000 SOIL and offloaded approximately 17,628 SOIL for about 6,683 XRP.
According to the analyst, the activity made it appear that XRP Ledger users had been used as exit liquidity during the launch.
Skeptic also argued that the pattern “does not look like healthy price discovery” and instead resembled issuer distribution followed by immediate dumping.
SOIL says bridge wallets drove the disputed transactions
Responding publicly on X, the SOIL team rejected the allegations and disputed the interpretation of the on-chain data. The project said the wallets identified by Skeptic were bridge addresses rather than project-controlled wallets and maintained that its team did not influence the token price.
SOIL attributed the sharp move in the XRPL market to strong buying interest meeting limited liquidity on decentralized exchanges. According to the project, arbitrage between centralized and decentralized venues functioned as expected once demand accelerated, while temporary price differences are common when market-making liquidity is relatively thin.
The disagreement continued after Skeptic argued that only the project initially possessed enough tokens to seed liquidity on XRPL. In response, SOIL maintained that the liquidity available at launch functioned as intended and only became strained because demand increased rapidly. Skeptic later replied that the project had simply failed to prepare for that level of demand.
The discussion later expanded beyond trading activity after another X user asked whether deposits of RLUSD locked in the protocol could be at risk. Skeptic responded that there was no evidence supporting such concerns and clarified that the criticism was limited to the token launch, concluding that the project had “screwed up.”
Recent XRPL developments provide additional context
The debate comes shortly after XRP Ledger released version 3.2.0 on June 22. As previously reported by crypto.news, the update introduced fixes for several software issues after a security review by blockchain security firm Common Prefix identified numerical and behavioral edge cases in the network’s core implementation.
SOIL has also been positioning itself as an early participant in XRP Ledger’s planned native lending ecosystem. Earlier this month, the project announced plans to operate on the proposed XRP Ledger Lending Protocol and Single Asset Vault framework once the XLS-65 and XLS-66 amendments receive approval.
Under the proposals, XLS-65 introduces shared asset vaults, while XLS-66 enables fixed-term lending backed by pooled liquidity.
Separate reporting by crypto.news also noted that blockchain security firm Halborn recently completed a re-audit of Ripple’s XRP Ledger Lending Protocol. The review found no critical or high-risk vulnerabilities and identified five findings in total, all of which were addressed, accepted, or acknowledged following review.
The audit examined transaction validation, accounting rules, state consistency, protocol limits, and access controls as Ripple continued preparing the lending framework for future deployment.
Powered by WPeMatico
