I get where you’re coming from — the comparison between XRP and Bitcoin always feels a bit forced, especially when you break it down technically and philosophically.
Bitcoin isn’t just a payment system; it’s a decentralised monetary network with a fixed supply and no controlling entity. XRP, on the other hand, was built for a very specific use case — fast, low-cost cross-border payments — and it does that well, but with trade-offs like centralisation and large pre-mined supply.
The moment a project relies on a company (Ripple Labs) to maintain or grow adoption, it automatically drifts away from the “Bitcoin model.” XRP may have use-case potential, especially with banks and remittances, but calling it the “next Bitcoin” feels more like marketing than analysis.
If anything, I’d say XRP is more like a specialised fintech token than a store-of-value asset. The two play in totally different leagues — and that’s okay. Not every altcoin needs to be “the next Bitcoin.”
That said, it’s interesting how narratives like this still get traction. Maybe that shows how strong Bitcoin’s benchmark status really is.
I think payment system and monetary network are the same. We can rather say that BTC is also an asset apart from it but that is also due to its fixed supply. Even though XRP is like that, we are still free to use it on other use cases that we like, like for example for trading or investing. It still can work well though because there is still some volatility on its value.
Those who say that this or that coin might be the next Bitcoin is not even a company or individual from the same team, so I won't say it is like a marketing ploy. Yeah, it is surely fine if whatever we think a coin may like be. At the end of the day, what matters are only ourselves and the not the others.