Why XRP Has Not Repeated Bitcoin and Ether’s Wealth-Building Rally

Table of Contents

• You might want to know
• Why XRP has lagged
• Key Insights Table
• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• Why has XRP remained below its 2018 peak while several other major cryptocurrencies have moved beyond theirs?
• What should investors watch to distinguish supply pressure from weakening demand for XRP?

Why XRP has lagged

Long-term holding is often presented as a straightforward way to build wealth in cryptocurrency markets, but the experience of XRP shows that holding through multiple market cycles does not guarantee a recovery to previous highs. XRP (XRP), the payments-focused token native to the XRP Ledger, has remained well below its early 2018 peak even as Bitcoin, Ether, and several other established digital assets have surpassed their earlier records. Analysts point to a combination of increased circulating supply, comparatively weak investment flows, falling trading activity, Ripple’s business priorities, and years of regulatory uncertainty.

XRP currently trades around $1.33, approximately 62.5% below its early January 2018 peak of $3.55. That means a buyer who entered at that peak would still be at a loss nearly nine years later, despite subsequent market cycles. XRP briefly moved above its old high, reaching $3.66 in July 2025, before falling again. The price history illustrates an important distinction: a token can rally sharply during a market boom without establishing a lasting higher level.

The comparison with other assets is striking, though it should be read in context. Bitcoin (BTC) at $80,955.28 is up 314% from its December 2017 peak of $19,804. Dogecoin (DOGE) at $0.08232 is up 322% from its January 2018 high, while BNB (BNB) at $730.03 is up about 2,800%. Ether (ETH) at $2,445.71 is up 66%, and zcash (ZEC) is up 38%. Tron is also slightly below its peak, down about 4%, while Solana launched in 2020 and therefore did not exist during the 2017 cycle. Bitcoin, Ether, and many other tokens have also fallen substantially from their 2025 peaks, but they remain far above their 2017 highs.

These comparisons do not prove that one asset’s history predicts another’s future. They do, however, show that the broader crypto market’s recovery has been uneven. The period beginning in 2017 brought digital assets into mainstream attention and drew in new investors. The run continued into the first week or two of 2018, leaving many tokens with dramatic highs that later became long-term reference points. XRP’s difficulty returning to that level has prompted questions about what changed in its supply, its investor base, and the market’s view of its role.

Supply growth is one explanation offered by analysts. Nicolai Sondergaard, senior research analyst at analytics firm Nansen, told CoinDesk that XRP’s circulating supply grew 63%, from 38.7B in 2017 to 63.1B, while XRP’s total market value fell only about 3%. Circulating supply refers to the tokens available in the market. When that number rises, each individual token represents a smaller portion of the asset’s overall market value, all else being equal. In practical terms, a similar total market capitalization can correspond to a lower per-token price when more tokens are circulating.

Oliver Carding, head of marketing at Tesseract Group, argues that XRP’s performance can look different when measured by total value rather than token price. “On value, XRP recovered,” he said. Carding noted that about 63% more XRP is in circulation than at the earlier peak, so the same circulating market capitalization would imply a price roughly 39% lower. Tesseract is an institutional digital asset management firm that manages over $500 million in assets under management. This perspective does not erase the decline experienced by a holder who bought near the peak; it offers another way to interpret why the token price may not have revisited that level.

The central supply-related point is that price alone does not tell the whole story: the quantity of tokens available also changes the relationship between market value and the price of each token. At the same time, supply is only one side of the equation. A growing supply can be absorbed if demand expands sufficiently. If demand does not keep pace, however, additional tokens may make a return to earlier prices more difficult.

Demand has also appeared weaker than for some competing assets. U.S.-listed exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, have created a route for institutional investors to gain exposure to digital assets. Bitcoin and Ether funds have attracted billions, but XRP funds have drawn considerably less attention. Paul Howard, senior director at market-making firm Wincent, described ETF uptake for XRP as muted relative to BTC and ETH. According to data source SoSoValue, XRP funds have attracted $1.80 billion in investor money since debuting nearly a year ago. Bitcoin ETFs, by comparison, often attract over $1 billion in a single day.

Fund flows are not a complete measure of demand. Investors can obtain exposure through other channels, and flows may change over time. Still, the difference provides one indication that XRP has not attracted institutional investment at the same pace as the largest crypto assets. Nansen’s data also points to reduced market activity: XRP spot volume is down 53.5%, perpetual futures volume is down 44%, and active addresses are down 10.7%. Together, these measures suggest that trading and network participation have weakened. They do not establish a single cause, but they help describe the conditions in which the token has been trading.

Ripple’s strategic focus may also have shaped how investors assess XRP. Ripple, the payments company closely associated with the token, has concentrated on cross-border payments and related infrastructure. Other prominent areas of crypto, including decentralized finance (DeFi), artificial intelligence (AI), and memecoins, have attracted significant capital flows and, in some cases, deeper integration with traditional finance. Howard said Ripple has been working to build payment infrastructure, RLUSD, and trade-financing products around use of the ledger and coin. In his view, that work has taken attention away from XRP alone as the core investment story.

A changing set of market narratives can matter because investors often compare projects not only by their current products, but also by the opportunities they appear to offer. Howard noted that DeFi has become a new investment narrative for ETH, SOL, and HYPE, an area on which XRP has not focused in the same way. That difference does not mean that a payments strategy lacks value. It means that an asset associated with one use case may receive less attention when capital and interest shift toward other sectors. XRP’s position therefore reflects both its own development path and the market’s evolving preferences.

Regulatory uncertainty was another major factor during XRP’s long period below its previous high. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Ripple and two of its executives in December 2020, alleging that the company had raised about $1.3 billion by selling XRP without registering it as a security. The litigation raised questions about how XRP sales would be treated under U.S. securities rules and created uncertainty for companies, trading venues, and investors assessing the token.

A federal judge ruled in 2023 that XRP sales on public exchanges were not securities offerings, while sales to institutional investors were. In 2024, Ripple was ordered to pay a $125 million penalty. The case ended in August 2025, when both sides dropped their appeals. Carding said the prolonged uncertainty helps explain why XRP did not revisit its 2018 high during the 2021 crypto bull run, when Coinbase suspended trading. He also observed that the appeals were dropped in August 2025 with XRP above $3. Since then, XRP is down about 59%, compared with 32% for bitcoin and 44% for ether, while its circulating market capitalization is down about 56%.

The end of the legal case removed one source of uncertainty, but it did not automatically restore demand or reverse XRP’s subsequent price decline. Regulatory clarity can influence access and investor confidence, yet asset performance also depends on supply, market activity, available investment products, and competition from other narratives. The distinction helps explain why a favorable development does not necessarily translate into sustained price appreciation.

XRP is not the only digital asset still below its early 2018 level. Carding said that, by price, six of the other nine assets in the January 2018 top ten are further below their levels from that week. The comparison is a reminder that the market’s most visible winners can obscure a broader range of outcomes. It also shows why historical peak prices should not be treated as guaranteed targets: different assets have different supply schedules, utility, market access, and exposure to changing investor interests.

For investors tracking XRP, Carding suggested watching XRP against bitcoin, alongside net monthly distribution after re-escrow and changes in fund holdings. His reasoning is that relative performance and token distribution can be assessed together. If XRP continues to underperform bitcoin even as distribution slows, that pattern could point to weakening demand rather than supply growth alone. Conversely, those measures would need to be interpreted alongside broader market conditions, activity on the ledger, and changes in investment access. They are indicators to monitor, not certainty about future prices.

Overall, XRP’s record reflects several forces operating at once. Its circulating supply expanded substantially, measures of trading and network activity weakened, fund inflows lagged those of bitcoin and ether, and Ripple pursued a payments-oriented strategy while other crypto sectors attracted attention. The SEC case added years of uncertainty, although the appeals were dropped in August 2025. No single factor fully explains XRP’s performance, and none by itself determines what happens next. The evidence instead suggests that supply, demand, legal conditions, and market narratives have combined to shape the token’s long recovery from its 2018 peak.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

XRP’s past performance underscores why crypto investors may look beyond a token’s previous peak. Future assessments can consider whether demand strengthens, whether new supply is absorbed, how fund holdings change, and whether activity on the XRP Ledger recovers. Tracking XRP against bitcoin and observing distribution after re-escrow may help clarify whether relative weakness is easing or persisting. These signals cannot guarantee a particular outcome, but they provide a more complete framework than price history alone. As the crypto market’s priorities continue to evolve, XRP’s prospects will depend on how its payments-focused ecosystem competes for adoption, capital, and investor attention.