- Lord Belgrave claims Ripple’s escrowed XRP was internally treated as “committed future liquidity,” reserved for Central Banks.
- He alleges long-standing, NDA-bound discussions with global institutions, including central banks and bodies like the IMF and BIS.
- The claims remain unverified and disputed in parts, with others noting NDAs don’t simply expire.
A former City of London banker known online as Lord Belgrave has sparked intense debate within the XRP community after suggesting that Ripple’s escrowed XRP supply may have been conceptually pre-allocated to central banks and major global institutions long before public adoption discussions began.
In a detailed social media post, Belgrave claimed that Ripple’s escrow was never designed as a pool of tokens waiting to be sold into the open market, but rather as a strategically engineered liquidity mechanism aligned with long-term institutional readiness.
Escrow as “Committed Future Liquidity”
According to Belgrave, Ripple’s escrow structure—defined by locked supply, deterministic release schedules, and multi-year horizons—was framed internally as committed future liquidity, not discretionary corporate inventory.
He stated that, in discussions he witnessed over several years, escrowed XRP was treated as if a significant portion had already been accounted for in future system deployments. While not publicly assigned or disclosed, the supply was allegedly regarded as conceptually reserved for large-scale financial infrastructure use.
Global Institutions and Central Banks Allegedly Involved
Belgrave further claimed that these discussions extended well beyond the United States and included institutions across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
He referenced central banks, systemically important financial institutions, and multilateral bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), not as marketing partners, but in the context of global settlement architecture.
Also Read: Nothing Is 100% Safe, Says ETF Expert as Bitcoin Quantum Fears Shake Crypto Today
Nobody is supposed to know this. But as promised, I am sharing this with you.
And I need to be precise in how I say it.
From what I witnessed over the years, Ripple’s escrow was never intended to represent loose corporate ownership waiting to be sold into the market.
It was…
— Lord Belgrave (@LordBelgrave) December 19, 2025
He emphasized that these conversations were governed by strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), suggesting that public visibility was deliberately limited during the system’s preparation phase.
According to Belgrave, recent developments may indicate that this long-standing silence is beginning to lift. He pointed to Ripple’s regulatory progress, including its OCC bank charter approval, and a noticeable shift in institutional language that increasingly mirrors Ripple’s long-established framework.
In his view, when a system transitions from preparation to deployment, ambiguity fades. NDAs begin to loosen, and what was once quietly reserved becomes operational.
Software Engineer Pushes Back on NDA Interpretation
Adding nuance to the discussion, software engineer Vincent Van Code responded to Belgrave’s claims, agreeing that a large number of NDAs exist but disputing the idea that they simply “expire.” According to Van Code, NDAs typically remain in force until both parties mutually agree in writing to disclose confidential information.
He explained that such agreements are largely designed to keep counterparties out of regulatory scrutiny until compliance requirements, audits, and legal frameworks are fully completed.
Van Code suggested that disclosure would more likely occur through coordinated agreement rather than automatic expiration, reinforcing the idea that regulatory readiness, not secrecy alone, has dictated the pace of public acknowledgment.
Speculation, Not Confirmation
While the claims have reignited speculation about XRP’s long-term role in global finance, it is important to note that neither Ripple nor any central bank or international institution has publicly confirmed that escrowed XRP has been pre-allocated in the manner described. Belgrave himself stressed that he was sharing how escrow was framed internally, not asserting documented proof of finalized allocations.
As XRP continues to attract attention for its potential role in cross-border settlement and financial infrastructure, discussions around escrow, liquidity, and institutional readiness are likely to intensify.
Whether these claims reflect behind-the-scenes reality or informed speculation remains unresolved, but they highlight growing anticipation that XRP’s next phase may involve far more than speculative trading. For now, the assertions remain unverified, offering a provocative lens into how some insiders believe Ripple’s long-term strategy was designed to unfold.
Also Read: Unknown 95,000,000 XRP Amid Price Uptick Raises Alarm – What’s Happening?
