Have you ever stopped to think about what happens when one of the people closest to a major digital asset decides the risk is simply too high for his own portfolio? In crypto circles, skin in the game has always been treated as a kind of badge of honor. When someone who helped shape the technology steps back dramatically from his personal exposure, it tends to spark the same questions over and over. How much did he actually sell? Why now? And what does it say about the asset he still holds a slice of? Those questions landed squarely on David Schwartz after he shared details of how far his holdings had shrunk.
The Numbers Behind the Reduction in Holdings
Schwartz, who stepped back from day-to-day duties as CTO and took on the title of CTO Emeritus, did not hide the scale of the change. He described moving from a high of roughly 26 million XRP down to something in the neighborhood of 3 million. On Bitcoin the drop was even steeper in percentage terms: from about 1,500 BTC to a single coin. Ethereum followed the same pattern, falling from around 40,000 ETH to just six. These are not rounding errors. They represent a deliberate, multi-year process of lightening the load.
In 2025 alone he sold approximately 2.5 million XRP, the bulk of which he had received in 2020 and 2023. The tax bill on those sales came to roughly $1.7 million in capital gains. That figure alone tells you the sales were not trivial. Most of the tokens had appreciated substantially from the cost basis he carried, so the government took a meaningful cut. He has been clear that he has not bought XRP in a long time and that he is simply uncomfortable carrying large digital-asset risk.
What makes the disclosure interesting is not just the absolute size of the sales. It is the contrast between past peaks and present reality. Someone who once held tens of millions of the native token of the ledger he co-architected now holds a few million. Someone who once sat on more than a thousand Bitcoin now holds one. The same pattern holds for Ethereum. These are the holdings of a person who has decided, repeatedly, that smaller is better for his personal situation.
How the Sales Were Structured
Schwartz has described a deliberate process. Each sale of XRP is arranged through a written plan that is agreed with an attorney at least 30 days before execution. The goal, he has said, is to remove any appearance that he is trading on non-public information—whether that information concerns potential bugs on the XRP Ledger or anything else. The procedure is personal rather than a company-wide mandate he has confirmed for others. Still, it shows a level of caution that goes beyond simple profit-taking.
He has also noted that he still owns a considerable amount of Ripple equity. In his view that single investment already represents more financial risk than he would ideally prefer. The digital-asset sales, then, sit inside a larger picture of someone who wants to limit concentration even when the assets in question are closely tied to work he has done for years.
| Asset | Approximate Peak | Approximate Current | Direction of Change |
| XRP | 26 million | 3 million | Sharp reduction |
| Bitcoin | 1,500 BTC | 1 BTC | Near-total exit |
| Ethereum | 40,000 ETH | 6 ETH | Near-total exit |
Earlier Sales and the Agreement With His Wife
This is not the first time Schwartz has talked about selling. In a July conversation he acknowledged selling XRP when it was trading near $0.10 and Ethereum near $1. Looking back, he has said he wishes he had not done those things. At the time he and his wife had reached an understanding: sell whenever prices made new all-time highs. The rule was simple and, in hindsight, expensive. Crypto has a habit of making even disciplined rules look foolish after the fact.
The tension is obvious. On one hand he regrets exiting too early. On the other hand the same risk aversion that produced those early sales is still guiding him. He has not reversed course and begun buying again. Instead he has continued to reduce. The pattern suggests the discomfort with risk is stronger than the regret over missed gains. For anyone who has ever sold too soon and then watched the price run, that trade-off is familiar. It is just rarely discussed by someone whose name is so closely linked to the asset.
I haven’t bought XRP in a long time. I am very uncomfortable with risk and have sold nearly all of the digital assets I’ve ever held.
Community Reaction and Questions of Confidence
The reaction among holders has been mixed and, in places, sharp. Some accounts circulated the comments while describing Schwartz as a founder who had sold nearly everything. That framing overstated both his title and the completeness of the exit—he still holds roughly 3 million XRP—but it captured the mood. When the token is already under pressure, news that a long-time insider has been a steady seller tends to amplify existing frustration.
Critics have asked why leadership figures reduce exposure while retail holders are expected to stay the course. Schwartz has addressed the influence question directly. Asked whether he has any effect on price, he has acknowledged that his involvement might matter at the margin but described that effect as limited. He has not claimed the sales are neutral, nor has he argued that holders should ignore them. The posture has been closer to “this is my personal risk tolerance” than “this is a signal about the network.”
At the same time, the token has been trading near $1.06, down more than 3 percent in the prior 24 hours and more than 16 percent over the past week in some measurements. Spot XRP exchange-traded funds recorded roughly $10.42 million in net outflows on one recent day, with one issuer accounting for most of the withdrawals. Selling pressure from multiple directions has been visible. In that environment, any reduction by a well-known figure is going to be read as additional weight on the same side of the scale.
- Holders questioning whether personal sales signal weaker long-term conviction
- Emphasis that 3 million XRP is still a large absolute position for most people
- Focus on the gap between past peaks and present holdings
- Concern that repeated sales at higher prices have been followed by further declines
Risk Tolerance Versus Network Involvement
One of the more interesting threads is the separation Schwartz maintains between his personal portfolio and his continued involvement with the ledger. He remains connected to the community and to technical discussions even after stepping back from the operational CTO role at the end of 2025. The sales have not been accompanied by any public withdrawal from the project itself. In his telling, the remaining exposure is concentrated in XRP and in Ripple equity, and that concentration was not entirely planned. It simply ended up that way as other digital assets were sold.
I’ve found that this distinction matters more than people sometimes admit. Plenty of engineers and founders keep working on systems long after they have reduced their personal financial bet. The work can be interesting, the technology can still have real uses, and the equity or remaining tokens can still represent meaningful upside—yet the day-to-day volatility of a large token position can feel like an unnecessary extra risk. Schwartz’s comments read like someone who has made that calculation and stuck with it, even when earlier sales proved premature.
Perhaps the most useful angle is not whether the sales were “right” or “wrong” for the price. It is what they reveal about how different people define acceptable risk. A co-architect of the ledger can still decide that holding tens of millions of the native token is more exposure than his household wants. That decision does not automatically invalidate the network’s design or its commercial progress. It does, however, remind holders that personal circumstances and risk preferences are not uniform, even among people who have been close to the project for years.
Tax Realities and the Cost of Realizing Gains
The $1.7 million capital-gains figure is a concrete reminder of how expensive it can be to exit appreciated crypto. Schwartz noted that most of the 2.5 million XRP sold in 2025 had been received in 2020 and 2023. Depending on the exact cost basis and holding periods, the effective tax rate on those gains was substantial. Anyone who has sold crypto after a multi-year run knows the feeling: a large headline gain can shrink quickly once the tax authority takes its share. The disclosure also arrived in the context of a broader conversation about IRS notices reminding crypto investors about compliance. Schwartz treated the notice he received as a routine reminder rather than a special event.
For holders who have been sitting on unrealized gains, the episode is a practical illustration. Selling is not free. The larger the appreciation, the larger the tax bill, and the more carefully the timing and structure of the sale need to be considered. Schwartz’s use of a pre-arranged written plan with an attorney is one way of managing both the optics and the execution. It is not the only way, but it is a visible example of someone treating the sale as a process rather than an impulse.
What the Pattern Suggests About Personal Portfolios
Looking across the whole timeline, the pattern is consistent. Sell into strength, reduce concentration, accept that some sales will later look early. The agreement with his wife to exit at new highs is a classic household rule that many investors adopt and later second-guess. The fact that he has continued reducing even after expressing regret over earlier exits suggests the underlying discomfort has not gone away. Crypto markets have a way of testing those rules repeatedly. Prices can stay elevated longer than expected, or they can reverse quickly. Either outcome can make the previous decision feel wrong.
In my experience, people who have already made large gains from an asset often become more willing to accept lower future upside in exchange for lower downside risk. The absolute numbers involved here are large by ordinary standards, yet the direction of travel is the same one many smaller holders eventually take: trim, diversify, sleep better. The difference is that when the person doing the trimming is closely associated with the asset, the decision is public and therefore subject to interpretation as a verdict on the project. Schwartz has tried to keep the two things separate. Whether the market will allow that separation is another question.
The remaining 3 million XRP is still a position that would be life-changing for most people. One Bitcoin and a handful of Ethereum are small by comparison with the earlier peaks, yet they are not zero. The overall picture is of someone who has moved from extreme concentration toward something more modest while retaining a stake. That middle ground is rarely discussed in absolute terms. It is easier to talk about “all in” or “all out.” The actual path has been gradual reduction over years, punctuated by specific sales that generated real tax liabilities.
Market Context and Ongoing Selling Pressure
None of this is happening in a vacuum. The token has been dealing with net outflows from spot exchange-traded products and with broader selling pressure. When price is already testing levels that holders watch closely, additional supply from any source—whether from long-term holders, funds, or executives—adds to the narrative. Schwartz has not claimed his sales are the primary driver. At the same time, he has not pretended they are invisible. The combination of personal reduction and visible market weakness is what has kept the conversation alive.
For anyone watching the price action, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Large holders can and do sell for reasons that have little to do with their view of the long-term technology. Tax bills, household risk limits, diversification into equity, or simple discomfort with volatility can all produce sales. Those sales can still affect short-term supply. Distinguishing between “I am uncomfortable with the size of my position” and “I no longer believe in the network” is possible, but it requires listening to the actual reasons given rather than the most dramatic interpretation.
Schwartz has been consistent on the reason: risk. He has said it in different ways across different conversations. He has paired it with the admission that some earlier sales were poorly timed. That combination—ongoing risk reduction plus retrospective regret—is more human than the usual binary of conviction or capitulation. It is also more common than crypto Twitter sometimes allows. Plenty of people who still like a technology decide they no longer want a large percentage of their net worth riding on its daily price swings. The fact that the person in this case helped build the ledger does not change the arithmetic of personal risk tolerance.
Practical Takeaways for Holders Evaluating Their Own Exposure
The episode offers a few concrete reference points even if the absolute numbers are far larger than most portfolios. First, pre-planned sales with a cooling-off period can reduce both emotional decisions and optics problems. Thirty days is long enough to separate the decision from any particular news event. Second, realizing gains creates real tax consequences that should be modeled in advance rather than discovered after the fact. Third, household agreements about when to sell can be useful until they aren’t; they need periodic review when market conditions change. Fourth, remaining exposure can still be significant even after large percentage reductions. Three million XRP is not a token amount for most people.
None of these points require agreeing with the specific sales. They simply illustrate how one experienced participant has handled the tension between belief in a technology and discomfort with concentrated risk. Different people will draw the line in different places. Some will hold through larger drawdowns because their time horizon or risk capacity allows it. Others will trim earlier. The market ultimately clears at whatever price balances all of those individual decisions. Public figures simply make their decisions more visible.
Looking ahead, the most useful question may not be whether Schwartz will sell more. It is whether holders treat personal portfolio decisions by insiders as decisive signals or as one data point among many. The ledger continues to process transactions. Commercial use cases continue to be built. Price continues to reflect the balance of buying and selling interest on any given day. The sales are part of that balance. They are not the entire story, and they do not erase the remaining position or the continued technical involvement. They do, however, show that even people closest to the project can decide that smaller is better for their own circumstances.
That decision is allowed. It is also allowed for holders to dislike it, to question the timing, or to adjust their own exposure in response. Crypto markets have never required uniform conviction from every participant. They only require that buyers and sellers meet at a price. When one of the longer-standing participants chooses to be a net seller over a multi-year period, the price eventually reflects that choice along with everyone else’s. The rest is interpretation—and interpretation, as this episode has shown, rarely stays quiet for long.
