Why each proposed amendment is worth building, or is not. For every item: the addressable market with a real number, what already solves the problem, and a verdict. Figures researched August 2026 with sources named. Where a market is small or the demand is speculative, this says so.
Verdicts: SHIP (build it, the case is made), GATE (real but needs a decision first), PARK (defensible idea, wrong year).
Adds alternative pricing curves to AMM pools instead of only constant product.
Market. Curve holds about $2.1B TVL and roughly $15B in 30-day volume on a single specialisation: stablecoin swaps, where its stableswap invariant keeps slippage on a $1M USDC/USDT trade under one basis point. Uniswap runs about $1.94B in 24-hour volume at roughly 27% of all DEX volume. The point is not that Curve is bigger than Uniswap, it is that an entire top-tier venue exists purely because one curve shape suits one asset class.
Competition. Curve and Balancer on Ethereum, and Uniswap v4 hooks, which let anyone attach custom curve logic to a pool.
Why XRPL. XRPL already has a protocol-native AMM (XLS-30) and a native central limit order book, which almost no other chain has. Today that AMM has exactly one curve, so every stablecoin and pegged-asset pair on XRPL prices on a formula designed for volatile pairs. Stablecoins are roughly $300B and tokenized Treasuries about $13.5B; both are pegged assets that constant product handles badly.
Risk. Uniswap v4 hooks arguably solve this more generally. XRPL's answer is that a protocol-level curve needs no contract deployment and no per-pool audit.
All-or-none, minimum quantity and post-only qualifiers on DEX orders.
Market. Professional market making is where order-book volume comes from, and post-only is not a nicety for that audience, it is the difference between quoting and not quoting. A maker who cannot guarantee they will not cross the spread cannot run a passive strategy without taker-fee leakage and adverse selection. Every serious venue, centralized and decentralized, ships these order types.
Competition. Every CEX. On-chain, dYdX, Hyperliquid and Vertex offer full professional order types, and Hyperliquid in particular has shown that a credible on-chain order book attracts real market makers.
Why XRPL. XRPL has had a native CLOB since 2012 and it is missing the order types that make a CLOB quotable. This is the cheapest credibility gain in the portfolio: the book exists, the liquidity venue exists, the missing piece is three qualifiers.
Risk. Order types alone do not bring market makers; fee structure and latency matter too.
On-ledger options including stop-loss.
Market, honestly. Crypto options are enormous and almost entirely centralized. Deribit alone traded about $79.5B in BTC options in February 2026 and roughly $1.875T across options and futures in 2025. On-chain is a rounding error against that: Aevo has done about $700M cumulative, and Lyra/Derive around $369M monthly while holding over 70% of the decentralized options market. Coinbase bought Deribit for $2.9B, which tells you where the volume actually is.
Verdict. The market is real and the on-chain share of it is not. Options are also the most complex item in this cluster. Park until the CLOB is professional-grade, since options need a functioning underlying market first.
Custom AMM curve logic via WASM contracts. Strictly downstream of both AMM V2 and Smart Contracts; no independent decision to make.
Oracle-triggered and oracle-priced offers. Pairs naturally with RFQ, and the draft spec exists. Promote when RFQ lands.
Payment channels for IOUs and MPTs, not only XRP.
Market. XRPL has had payment channels since 2017 and they only work for XRP, which means every issued asset on the ledger, including every stablecoin, is excluded from the ledger's own streaming-payment primitive. Stablecoins are ~$300B and are what people actually transact in.
Competition. Lightning for BTC, Superfluid and Sablier for streaming ERC-20s.
Verdict. Already approved and near merge. The clawback addition closes a real hole: without it, tokens locked in a channel are invisible to issuer clawback, which is a compliance problem for any regulated issuer.
Pull payments: authorize a counterparty to charge up to a limit on a cadence.
Market. Recurring payment rails are among the largest payment categories in existence. SEPA Direct Debit and ACH move enormous volumes precisely because the payee can pull. Crypto has essentially no native equivalent: every "subscription" in crypto is either a custodial arrangement or a smart-contract allowance with unbounded risk.
Competition. Stripe Billing and GoCardless off-chain; ERC-20 approve
allowances on-chain, which are the single largest source of wallet-drain
losses precisely because they are unbounded and permanent.
Why XRPL. A protocol-level pull payment with an explicit cap and cadence is strictly safer than an unbounded token allowance. That is a genuine security argument, not just a convenience one.
Risk. Adoption needs merchant tooling, not just the primitive.
Destination becomes optional; the recipient binds at claim time.
Market. This is enabling infrastructure rather than a product, so sizing it directly is not meaningful. What it unlocks: bounties and atomic reveals (lock funds behind a preimage, whoever satisfies it collects), and pre-funded open channels where a payer funds once before knowing which counterparty they will settle with. Today the latter costs one channel per candidate counterparty, each with reserve and a settle-delay wind-down.
Verdict. Small, cheap, and it makes two existing primitives strictly more useful. The recipient-naming claim format also closes a front-running hole that a naive version of this feature would open.
Bond-style periodic distributions from an issuer to holders.
Market. Tokenized private credit is around $8B and tokenized Treasuries around $10B of the roughly $22B tokenized RWA AUM. Coupon-bearing instruments are exactly this segment. The catch is that most tokenized debt today is either zero-coupon or accrues in NAV rather than paying out, which is how BUIDL and USYC work.
Verdict. Real segment, uncertain timing. Gate it on a named issuer who wants it, rather than building on the assumption that coupon-paying tokenized bonds arrive on XRPL in 2027.
Funded single-use value claims. Destinationless escrow with a condition is the same object. Removed from the portfolio.
Protocol-validated structured data on token issuances, with an immutable schema and a shared SchemaHash.
Market. Tokenized RWA on public chains reached about $31B by July 2026, having grown over 400% since January 2025 excluding stablecoins. Forecasts for 2030 range from McKinsey's ~$2T to BCG's $16T; the spread is large because they measure different things, but every one of them assumes machine-readable, reportable token data.
Competition. ERC-1400 and ERC-3643/T-REX handle permissioned security tokens on Ethereum, all in contract code. XRPL's own XLS-89 covers display metadata but is category Ecosystem, meaning the ledger validates only the blob's length. A "compliant" token today is one that client libraries agree to call compliant.
Why XRPL. Consensus-enforced structure is something a smart-contract chain cannot easily offer, because there the schema is just more contract code. Two issuances sharing a SchemaHash are provably the same shape, which is what makes an indexer or wallet able to decode across thousands of tokens.
Verdict. Implemented and fully verified already. Cheapest audit-ready amendment in the portfolio.
Issuance objects for IOUs: supply caps, MPT convertibility, par crossing. Sensible, large in scope, and correctly sequenced behind the smaller wins.
Fee schedule, delegated fund-manager role, DID-bound fund metadata, investor-count and concentration limits on XLS-65 vaults.
Market. Tokenized fund AUM is the fastest-growing RWA segment (USYC ~$3B, BUIDL ~$2.4B). Real funds charge management and redemption fees and have a manager distinct from the owner, none of which XLS-65 models today.
Verdict. Coordinate with the XLS-65 authors. The closed-ended lifecycle is already being handled upstream, so this is the remaining gap, not a competing design.
OHLCV candles, trades and AMM analytics served from the node itself.
Market. Market data is a real industry: Kaiko, Amberdata, The Graph and Dune all sell what is essentially indexed chain data. Every XRPL DEX front-end today either runs its own indexer or depends on someone else's.
Why XRPL. Non-consensus node feature, so no amendment risk, and it removes an entire class of ecosystem dependency. Implementation already runs on the timeseries node.
Account-level transaction firewall: outbound rules, whitelists, OTP-style overrides.
Market. Chainalysis put 2025 crypto theft above $3.4B. More relevant than the headline is the shape of it: 158,000 personal-wallet compromises hit 80,000 victims for $713M in 2025, and personal wallets were about 20% of all value stolen. Wallet-drainer phishing specifically fell to $83.9M in 2025 from $494M in 2024, which shows the problem is tractable when defences improve.
Competition. Hardware wallets, multisig, Safe modules, and transaction simulation tools like Blowfish. All of them sit above the protocol, so all of them can be bypassed by a signature the user was tricked into producing.
Why XRPL. A protocol-enforced outbound rule cannot be phished, because the ledger refuses the transaction regardless of who signed it. That is a categorically different guarantee from a wallet warning.
P-256/WebAuthn transaction signing.
Market. The FIDO Alliance counts about 5 billion passkeys in use as of World Passkey Day 2026, with 75% of people having enabled at least one and 49% using them regularly. This is now the mainstream consumer authentication method.
Competition. Account abstraction with P-256 precompiles on Ethereum (RIP-7212). Note that this needed a precompile to be practical, which is evidence the curve support belongs at protocol level.
Why XRPL. Every XRPL key today is something a user must back up and can lose. Passkeys move signing into hardware people already own and already use for everything else. The spec is XLS-84d, authored by intelliot, so XRPLF is implementing rather than authoring.
Inheritance: a beneficiary can claim an account after a defined period of inactivity.
Market. Lost keys are the oldest unsolved problem in the industry, with widely cited estimates putting millions of BTC permanently inaccessible. The failure mode is specific and permanent: the holder dies, and without the private key the assets are gone regardless of any legal instrument.
Competition. Safe recovery modules, Argent guardians, Casa inheritance, and off-chain arrangements where an executor holds a key, which trades inheritance risk for theft risk during the holder's life.
Why XRPL. Inactivity-triggered claim at protocol level requires no third party and no key sharing, which is exactly what makes the existing options unattractive.
Unilateral, revocable, timestamped statements about any 32-byte subject.
Market. The direct comparison is Ethereum Attestation Service, which is deployed across mainnet and most major L2s and is used as public-good infrastructure. Its existence and spread is the demand evidence.
Why XRPL. XLS-70 Credentials cannot cover this: a credential's subject must be an account and must accept. A git commit cannot accept anything. Attestations are the unilateral half of that space.
Verdict. Smallest full amendment in the portfolio, roughly 1 to 1.5 engineer-months, and it subsumes the older source-code-validation idea by providing the primitive underneath it.
Encrypted-tally ballots. The implementation exists and the crypto is the expensive part to review. Real but not urgent; gate on a governance consumer who needs it.
ML-DSA-44 post-quantum signatures.
Honest position. NIST finalized the post-quantum standards (FIPS 203/204/ 205) in 2024, so the algorithms are settled. What is not settled is the timeline for cryptographically-relevant quantum computers, and no chain has migrated its signature scheme in production. The engineering cost is real: Dilithium signatures and keys are far larger than Ed25519, which touches serialization, fees, manifests and multisig.
Verdict. Funding the migration study in 2027 and gating the amendment on its findings is the right call. Shipping a PQ signature scheme before the study would be building on an unexamined assumption about the hardest part, which is migration, not the algorithm.
WASM contracts as first-class ledger objects. The largest item in the portfolio at roughly 5 engineer-months of development plus 3 of review, and it carries the Hooks-versus-XLS-101 decision that also determines the Evernode answer. Opening this gate is what activates the engineering capacity reserve, which is why the decision comes before the build.
Bringing a project from another chain. H1 scoping study; the platform decision it produces steers XLS-101.
Three groups, and they are not equally strong.
Strongest case: security and identity. Firewall, Passkey, Beneficiary and Attestations all address problems with measured, recurring costs, and all four are things a protocol can do that a wallet cannot. The theft numbers are not forecasts, they are losses that already happened.
Strongest strategic fit: trading. XRPL has a native CLOB and a native AMM, which is rare. AMM V2 and RFQ finish primitives the ledger already committed to, rather than adding new surface.
Largest market, least certain timing: tokenization. Tokenized RWA at ~$31B growing 400% year over year is real, and the 2030 forecasts are enormous, but XRPL's share of it depends on issuers choosing this chain, which no amendment guarantees. MPT Structured Data is the right bet here because it is nearly free (already implemented and verified) and it makes token data machine-usable, which every one of those forecasts assumes.
The honest omissions. Options is parked because on-chain options volume does not justify the complexity yet. Vouchers is dropped because destinationless escrow covers it. Coupon payments is gated on a real issuer rather than an assumption. Saying so is more useful than a portfolio where everything scores well.