XRP-Focused Lawyer Bill Morgan: Here’s My Biggest Complaint about Ripple

Lawyer Bill Morgan has questioned Ripple’s decision to retain control over the distribution of XRP held in escrow, explaining that the company could have completed the entire release process years earlier. He believes distributing the full 1 billion XRP allocation every month, without relocking any portion, would have eliminated the escrow balance by the second half of 2023. His comments also challenge the recurring criticism surrounding Ripple’s monthly escrow releases and calls for the company to burn the remaining tokens.

Morgan Revisits Ripple’s 55 Billion XRP Escrow In his post on X, Morgan recalled that Ripple established its escrow system in December 2017, placing 55 billion XRP into 55 separate contracts. Under the arrangement, up to 1 billion XRP becomes available for release each month. However, Ripple has historically returned portions of the unlocked tokens to new escrow contracts rather than distributing the entire amount.

Morgan questioned why the company did not simply release the full 1 billion XRP allocation into the market every month. He suggested that removing the option to relock unused tokens would have forced Ripple to distribute the entire monthly allocation. Under that approach, the original 55 billion XRP escrow balance would have been exhausted by the second half of 2023.

Morgan also estimated that XRP’s circulating supply would now represent approximately 95% of its total 100 billion supply. My biggest complaint about Ripple is that they set up the escrow in December 2017 and placed 55 billion in escrow in 55 contracts and didn’t just distribute 1 billion per month since then. If they did not have a discretion to distribute just some of it to the market and re-lock… — bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) November 1, 2026 Lawyer Criticizes Repeated Complaints About Escrow Morgan’s argument focuses heavily on the criticism Ripple receives over its escrow arrangements.

He believes completing the distribution earlier would have removed one of the main subjects frequently raised by XRP critics. He specifically referred to complaints about Ripple releasing XRP into the market and demands for the company to burn its remaining escrow holdings. Morgan questioned what critics would focus on once Ripple eventually distributes all the tokens.

He suggested that those who currently blame the escrow system for XRP’s price performance would simply find another reason to criticize the company. His comments reflect his frustration with the repeated arguments surrounding escrow releases and their influence on discussions about XRP’s market performance. Community Members Disagree Over the Escrow’s Market Impact The comments beneath Morgan’s post presented different views on the importance of Ripple’s escrow arrangements.

CASCADE supported Morgan’s position, describing complaints about escrow as largely meaningless. The commenter maintained that XRP would serve its intended purpose regardless of retail investors’ opinions and argued that retail holders control only a small portion of the asset’s supply. Digital Finance Daily offered a different assessment, arguing that Morgan’s hypothetical approach overlooks basic supply-and-demand principles.

The commenter explained that releasing the entire 1 billion XRP every month without relocking unsold tokens could have overwhelmed available market demand. Such consistent supply could have created significant selling pressure, weakened liquidity and pushed XRP’s price considerably lower. Digital Finance Daily also challenged the assumption that completing the escrow distribution would automatically benefit XRP’s price.

The commenter stressed that removing future escrow releases would reduce one source of potential selling pressure, but would not independently create demand. The response further questioned whether institutional adoption and actual XRP transaction activity would generate sufficient buying pressure to support the asset’s valuation once the escrow runs out. Ultimately, the exchange presents two separate questions about XRP’s escrow system: whether Ripple could have distributed its holdings faster and whether the market would have been able to absorb that supply without significant consequences for XRP’s price.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions.

Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News