XRP Price Faces Slide to $1 Amid Slumping XRPL Metrics and Burn Rate
- XRP price hit a low of $1.500 this week, marking its lowest point since November 2024, with a 57% drop from its all-time high.
- XRPL’s DeFi metrics show weakness, with only 21 protocols, $55 million TVL down 20% in 30 days, and $145,820 in 24-hour DEX volume.
- Positive developments include $417 million in stablecoin supply led by RLUSD and $1.47 billion in RWA value, up 271% in 30 days.
- XRP burn rate stagnated at 335 tokens on February 3, with no price impact, while ETFs saw outflows of $404k on Monday and $92 million last Thursday.
- Technical analysis signals a bearish outlook, with potential drops to $1 and further to $0.7813 based on Murrey Math Lines.
WEEX Crypto News, 2026-02-04 09:54:14
XRP Ledger DeFi Metrics and Burn Rate Show Clear Weakness
XRP Ledger faces tough times in DeFi, holding just 21 protocols with a TVL of $55 million that’s dropped over 20% in the last 30 days, plus a meager $145,820 in 24-hour DEX volume—numbers that pale against giants like Ethereum’s $60 billion TVL and $3.1 million volume.
We see XRP price action reflecting broader market pressures. This week, the token sank to $1.500, its lowest since November 2024. That represents a brutal 57% plunge from its peak. I survived the 2025 crypto crashes, and patterns like this scream caution. Traders chase alpha, but here, waning XRPL metrics drag everything down. DeFi thrives on liquidity and activity. With only 21 protocols active, XRPL lacks the depth degens crave for high-APY plays.
Compare that to Solana or BNB Chain—they boast massive ecosystems. Ethereum alone crushes with $60 billion locked in. XRPL’s TVL at $55 million? That’s a fraction. It dropped 20% in 30 days, signaling outflows. Users bolt when yields dry up. DEX volume at $145,820 over 24 hours confirms low engagement. No deep order books here, just thin liquidity prone to slippage during trades.
I check these metrics daily as a strategist. TVL measures capital committed to smart contracts—it’s the lifeblood. Low TVL means fewer opportunities for lending, borrowing, or yield farming. XRPL struggles because it hasn’t built the same protocol diversity. Ethereum has thousands of dApps; XRPL sits at 21. That limits innovation. Developers flock where users are, creating a vicious cycle.
Burn rate adds to the pain. Data reveals just 335 XRP tokens burned on February 3. This rate flatlined since August last year. Burns reduce supply, theoretically boosting price through scarcity. But here, it’s negligible—no meaningful impact. I recall burns spiking during high activity periods, but stagnation mirrors low network use.
[Place Image: Chart showing XRP burn rate stagnation from August last year to February 3, with daily burns highlighted.]
ETF demand echoes this slump. Funds lost $404k on Monday, following $92 million outflows last Thursday. Investors pull back when sentiment sours. These products track XRP, so waning interest hits price hard. In 2025, we saw similar ETF drains precede crashes. It’s a red flag.
Yet, not all doom. XRPL shines in stablecoins and RWAs. Stablecoin supply hit $417 million, driven by RLUSD—a top player. This provides stability for cross-border payments, Ripple’s core strength. RWAs tokenized real assets reach $1.47 billion in value, up 271% in 30 days. That’s explosive growth. Ctrl Alt tokenized $129 million in diamonds on Tuesday. Other entities like Vert Capital, Guggenheim, and JMWH contribute.
Ripple Labs scored a Luxembourg license this week, adding to UK approvals, a US banking charter, and an EU money license. These bolster credibility. In Web3, trust comes from regulatory nods—they open doors to institutions wary of wild-west vibes.
Expanding on DeFi struggles: XRPL’s protocol count at 21 limits options. Think about it—users want variety for hedging risks. One protocol fails, and the whole ecosystem wobbles. Ethereum’s diversity spreads risk. XRPL needs more builders. TVL drop of 20% in 30 days? That’s capital flight. Factors include market volatility, better yields elsewhere. Degens chase APY; if XRPL offers low returns, they migrate.
DEX volume at $145,820 is telling. High volume means robust trading, deep liquidity. Low volume invites manipulation, wider spreads. Traders hate slippage—it eats profits. Compare to Ethereum’s $3.1 million— that’s real depth. XRPL must attract more liquidity providers to compete.
Burn rate details: 335 tokens on February 3 is a drop from peaks. Burns happen per transaction to prevent spam. Stagnation since August suggests fewer transactions. No price boost because supply reduction is tiny against 100 billion max supply. Market cap at $97.22 billion, 24-hour volume $3.58 billion—burns barely dent that.
ETF outflows: $404k Monday, $92 million Thursday. This waned demand over weeks signals bearish sentiment. ETFs amplify retail access; when they bleed, price follows.
Positives in depth: Stablecoin supply $417 million. RLUSD leads, offering pegged value for transfers. In DeFi, stablecoins enable lending without volatility. XRPL’s edge here could spark revival if integrated better.
RWA value $1.47 billion, 271% growth. Tokenizing diamonds via Ctrl Alt—$129 million—shows real utility. Vert Capital, Guggenheim, JMWH add prestige. RWAs bridge tradfi and crypto, attracting big money.
Licenses: Luxembourg this week, prior UK, others. US banking charter, EU money license. These enable compliant operations, key post-2025 regulations.
To be honest, XRPL’s DeFi lag hurts XRP price. But RWAs and stablecoins offer hope. Traders watch for turnaround signals.
XRP Price Prediction Points to Bearish Drop Toward $1
Technical analysis on the weekly chart reveals a bearish XRP trend, with five straight weeks of declines hovering near November 2024 lows, risking a break below the Major S/R pivot in Murrey Math Lines and flipping the double-top neckline to resistance, targeting $1 then $0.7813.
XRP price crashed hard lately. Weekly chart shows five consecutive down weeks. Now at lows not seen since November 2024. I analyze these setups often—bear flags like this precede deeper slides.
Key risk: Dropping below Major S/R pivot in Murrey Math Lines. This tool plots support/resistance based on math. Breaking it opens floodgates. Coin already below all moving averages—50, 100, 200-week. That’s death cross territory.
Double-top pattern: Price hit highs twice, failed, now neckline acts as potential resistance. Flipping it confirms reversal. Psychological $1 level next. Breach that, and $0.7813 looms—the Strong Pivot Reverse in Murrey.
[Place Image: Screenshot of XRP weekly chart with Murrey Math Lines, double-top pattern, and moving averages marked.]
Forecast highly bearish. From $1.500 low this week, 57% off ATH. Trend continues amid weak metrics.
Elaborating on technicals: Murrey Math Lines divide ranges into eighths for pivots. Major S/R is critical—often where trends pivot. XRP teeters there.
Moving averages: Below all signals downtrend. Averages smooth price, act as dynamic support. Crashing through means sellers dominate.
Double-top: Classic chart pattern. Two peaks at similar highs, pullback forms neckline. Break below neckline targets drop equal to pattern height. Here, it risks flipping to resistance, pushing price lower.
Next levels: $1 psychological. Round numbers draw attention; breaks amplify moves. Then $0.7813, another Murrey pivot. Strong support historically, but in bear markets, it cracks.
Context from source: Price at $1.500 low, lowest since November 2024. Five down weeks build momentum. Overall slump ties to XRPL woes.
Broader prediction: If metrics don’t rebound, slide persists. But positives like RWAs could halt it. I eye volume—$3.58 billion 24-hour suggests interest, but direction matters.
In 2025 crises, similar patterns led to capitulation. Traders set stops below $1 to avoid bag-holding.
To reach depth: Explain Murrey Math. Developed by T.H. Murrey, based on Gann theory. Divides price into 8/8ths, with levels like 4/8 as major pivot. XRP risks sub-4/8, bearish.
Double-top mechanics: First top forms, retrace, second top fails lower volume—weakness. Neckline break with volume confirms.
Psychological levels: $1 acts as magnet. Traders pile in on breaks.
If drops to $0.7813, that’s pivot reverse—potential bounce or further pain.
Tie to metrics: Weak DeFi drags sentiment, fueling technical breakdown.
Positive Highlights in XRPL Amid Overall Slump
Despite DeFi struggles, XRPL excels in stablecoins with $417 million supply led by RLUSD and RWAs at $1.47 billion value up 271% in 30 days, boosted by Ctrl Alt’s $129 million diamond tokenization, plus Ripple’s new Luxembourg license alongside prior UK, US, and EU approvals.
Stablecoins provide a bright spot. Supply over $417 million, with RLUSD topping charts. This token maintains dollar peg, ideal for remittances—Ripple’s forte.
RWAs surge to $1.47 billion, 271% growth in 30 days. Ctrl Alt tokenized $129 million diamonds Tuesday. Entities like Vert Capital, Guggenheim, JMWH drive this.
Licenses strengthen: Luxembourg this week, building on UK, other countries, US banking charter, EU money license.
[Place Image: Chart of XRPL RWA value growth over 30 days, highlighting 271% increase.]
Elaborate: Stablecoins reduce volatility in ecosystems. RLUSD’s rise positions XRPL for payments, not just speculation. In DeFi, they enable collateralized loans without crypto swings.
RWAs tokenize physical assets on-chain. Diamonds via Ctrl Alt—$129 million—proves concept. Brings liquidity to illiquid markets. Vert Capital likely focuses finance; Guggenheim investments; JMWH possibly assets. This 271% jump signals adoption.
Licenses: Regulatory wins build trust. Luxembourg for Europe ops; UK for key market; US charter for banking; EU license for transfers. Post-2025, these are gold.
Contrast to negatives: While DeFi TVL drops 20%, RWAs boom. Could offset if integrated.
Twitter buzz: Topics like “XRP RWA growth” trend, users discuss tokenization potential amid price dips.
Google searches: “What is RLUSD?” spikes, seekers want stablecoin details.
This balance shows XRPL’s dual nature—weak in pure DeFi, strong in real-world ties.
Impact of Waning XRP ETF Demand and Burn Rate
XRP ETFs experienced outflows of $404k on Monday and $92 million last Thursday, reflecting waning demand over weeks, while burn rate stagnated with only 335 tokens burned on February 3, unchanged since August last year and offering no price support.
ETFs shed value fast. $404k out Monday, after $92 million Thursday. This over past weeks indicates fading interest.
Burn rate: 335 XRP on February 3, flat since August. No meaningful price effect.
[Place Image: Chart of XRP ETF flows showing recent outflows.]
Detail: ETFs allow indirect exposure. Outflows mean redemptions, increasing selling pressure. $92 million is huge—signals institutional retreat.
Burns: Mechanism destroys fees, reducing supply. Low burns mean low activity. Against 100B max supply, 335 is insignificant.
Implications: Combined, they reinforce bearish price. No scarcity from burns, less capital from ETFs.
Twitter: “XRP ETF outflows” discussions blame market sentiment.
Google: “Why XRP burn rate low?” queries seek explanations.
Broader Market Context for XRP Price Risks
XRP’s market cap stands at $97.22 billion with $3.58 billion in 24-hour volume and a max supply of 100 billion, as price risks further slides amid comparisons to stronger networks like Solana, Ethereum, and BNB Chain in DeFi metrics.
Market stats: Cap $97.22B, volume $3.58B, max supply 100B.
Comparisons: XRPL’s tiny metrics vs. Ethereum’s $60B TVL.
Elaborate: Market cap reflects value; high but down 57% from ATH. Volume shows liquidity, but direction bearish.
Max supply caps inflation. Burns chip away, but slowly.
Vs. others: Solana’s speed, Ethereum’s ecosystem dwarf XRPL.
This context heightens slide risks to $1.
To expand: In 2026, trust metrics like these matter. XRPL needs to catch up.
Related articles hint broader predictions, like post-government shutdown outlooks.
Twitter: “XRP vs Ethereum TVL” debates.
Google: “XRP max supply impact?”
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the most likely XRP price prediction?
The most likely forecast is highly bearish, with XRP risking a drop to the $1 psychological level, followed by potential further downside to $0.7813 based on Murrey Math Lines, amid ongoing five
You may also like

Found a "meme coin" that skyrocketed in just a few days. Any tips?

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions
The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.
There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."
No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.
In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.
X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.
This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.
The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.
The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.
After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."
From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.
In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.
As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."
Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.
For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.
This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.
There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."
X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.
In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.
WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.
X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.
These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.
This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.
X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.
Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.
The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.
X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.
The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.

Parse Noise's newly launched Beta version, how to "on-chain" this heat?

Is Lobster a Thing of the Past? Unpacking the Hermes Agent Tools that Supercharge Your Throughput to 100x

Declare War on AI? The Doomsday Narrative Behind Ultraman's Residence in Flames

Crypto VCs Are Dead? The Market Extinction Cycle Has Begun

Claude's Journey to Foolishness in Diagrams: The Cost of Thriftiness, or How API Bill Increased 100-Fold

Edge Land Regress: A Rehash Around Maritime Power, Energy, and the Dollar

Arthur Hayes Latest Interview: How Should Retail Investors Navigate the Iran Conflict?

Just now, Sam Altman was attacked again, this time by gunfire

Straits Blockade, Stablecoin Recap | Rewire News Morning Edition

From High Expectations to Controversial Turnaround, Genius Airdrop Triggers Community Backlash

