A 2021 Citibank document that used the phrase “Regulated Internet of Value” sits at the center of a new XRP debate, after researcher Jesse of Apex Crypto Insights argued the wording was later shifted to “Regulated Liability Network” because the link to Ripple was too obvious.
He says that paper trail, along with years of weak price action, points to a token that may be held down for reasons that are bigger than ordinary market trading.
A Price That Would Not Move
XRP’s chart is the first thing Jesse points to. The token reached $3.84 during the 2018 bull run and later touched $3.60 earlier in this cycle, yet it has spent much of the past decade moving sideways while Bitcoin climbed far higher.
Jesse called that mismatch hard to explain under a normal market setup and said, in his view, suppression is one possible answer.
The claim is not presented as proof. Jesse frames it as his opinion, but he ties it to a wider argument about how the financial system may change if XRP ends up in a deeper role than simple payments.
The Internet Of Value Thesis
Jesse says XRP should be viewed as part of an “internet of value” rather than just another crypto asset. He links that idea to Ripple’s Interledger Protocol, which he says is meant to move value in the same way the internet moves information.
From there, he says the trail runs through several institutional documents and speeches. According to Jesse, Citibank’s Tony McLaughlin has described the Regulated Liability Network and the shared ledger idea as the same concept, and he says the Bank for International Settlements has also talked about a unified ledger that could replace correspondent banking and even Swift.
The researcher’s case is built on that chain of references. He argues that if major banks are preparing a new settlement system, an asset tied to that system may not be allowed to swing wildly in price, since volatility would be a problem for anything meant to function as a reserve or settlement layer.
What The Theory Still Lacks
Jesse does not present hard evidence of manipulation. His argument is based on interpretation rather than any public proof of coordinated price control, and it ultimately leaves the question unresolved, with no definitive conclusion drawn on market behavior.
Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView