A four-week-old interview clip of Morgan Creek Capital’s Mark Yusko—resurfaced on Wednesday by the prominent XRP advocate “Digital Asset Investor” (DAI)—reignited one of crypto’s most ritualized arguments: whether criticism of XRP is fair analysis or reflexive tribalism.
XRP Is Not A Scam, Expert Admits
In the edited segment, Yusko jokes about “the XRP army,” then acknowledges, “I might’ve said that XRP is a scam… and I actually kind of stand by it,” before adding that price increases say more about order flow than about underlying functionality: “And the fact that an asset increases in price doesn’t mean that the functionality got better. It just means that, you know, there’s more buyers than sellers. So the price rises,” he said.
He also riffed on Washington “king-making” ledgers for specific functions and poked at rumors after Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was photographed with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. DAI framed the repost bluntly: “XRP Is a Dinosaur Coin According to @scottmelker. XRP is a scam according to @MarkYusko… When Bitcoin becomes an Altcoin they know the party is over.”
Scott “The Wolf of All Streets” Melker pushed back almost immediately—at once distancing himself from Yusko’s characterization and from the entire topic. “I don’t think XRP is a scam,” he wrote. “I don’t really think about XRP. However, many who do think about XRP get deeply troubled when they think that someone might think something bad about XRP. Seems like their problem, not mine.”
In a follow-up, he clarified that what he found “amazing” was Yusko’s willingness to say exactly what he thinks, not the idea that XRP is fraudulent.
That posture—simultaneously rejecting the “scam” label while calling XRP and Ethereum “dinosaur” coins—tracked with Melker’s public commentary and helped sustain the flare-up across Crypto-Twitter overnight.
Supporters of XRP seized on the moment to argue that blanket aspersions are out of step with the project’s legal and market standing after the five-year SEC fight wound down this month.
The most detailed rebuttal came from “Cryptoinsightuk,” who argued that the “scam” discourse is selectively applied and misreads both market structure and the recent history of enforcement. His core position: “The crazy part about this is XRP is no more of a ‘scam’ than BTC, which is no more of a “scam” than the dollar and the whole financial system. It blows my mind to watch the constant bombardment of hatred towards XRP specifically and then for those throwing out wild accusations”
He also pushed back on Yusko’s “king-maker” framing by noting that, for years, US authorities effectively did the opposite by singling out Ripple and its token for aggressive action. In his telling, that history undermines the idea that XRP has benefited from preferential treatment, even implicitly.
Lawyer Bill Morgan (@Belisarius2020) just commented: “A truly ridiculous take. Much anti-XRP FUD comes from the same sources. It has nothing to do with valid criticism of XRP or preference for other coins. It is deliberate FUD.”
On August 8, 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission formally ended its lawsuit against Ripple Labs; District Judge Analisa Torres’ penalties remained in place—most notably a $125 million civil fine and an injunction restricting certain institutional-sale conduct—while both sides dropped their appeals. The court’s 2023 summary-judgment split still defines the legal perimeter: institutional sales of XRP were unregistered securities offerings; programmatic sales on exchanges were not.
That distinction is central to why the “scam” charge grates in 2025. The legal record does not pronounce the token itself fraudulent; it delineates when and how Ripple’s sales practices fell under securities law.
As for Yusko, his critique in the resurfaced clip is less about illegality and more about utility, politics and narrative gravity—an argument that an asset’s price ascent can be disconnected from improvements in its “functionality.”
At press time, XRP traded at $
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.
