Business leader Jake Claver recently commented on the structural differences between Bitcoin’s Lightning Network and the XRP Ledger, offering a detailed assessment of how each system approaches scalability, settlement, and institutional use. Rather than focusing on market sentiment, his remarks centered on design choices and practical limitations that could shape how these networks are used in real-world financial environments. Let's talk about $BTC Lightning Network vs the $XRP Ledger pic.twitter.com/H8SVf1hgpU — Jake Claver, QFOP (@beyond_broke) December 26, 2025 How the Lightning Network Functions Claver described the Lightning Network as a second-layer solution built on top of Bitcoin. In his view, it operates by locking Bitcoin on the base layer and allowing users to exchange value within off-chain channels, with final settlement occurring when those funds are released back to the main network. This structure enables faster transactions compared to Bitcoin’s base layer, but he argued that it remains constrained by the underlying design of Bitcoin itself. According to Claver, even with Lightning, throughput remains far below the levels required for large-scale payment systems. He suggested that Bitcoin’s architecture was never intended to support the type of transaction volumes seen in global networks, such as major card processors. In his assessment, no secondary layer can fully overcome those limits if the base layer lacks the necessary functionality for high-speed, high-volume settlement. Scalability and Structure of the XRP Ledger Turning to the XRP Ledger , Claver pointed to its on-ledger performance, noting that its transaction capacity is already far higher than Bitcoin’s base layer. He acknowledged that even this level may not be sufficient for the largest institutional use cases. However, he emphasized that the XRPL is designed to evolve through sidechains and subnet-style structures that can expand throughput while remaining interoperable with the main network. He framed this approach as fundamentally different from a temporary overlay, arguing that scaling solutions tied directly to the XRPL’s architecture allow for real settlement between counterparties . In his view, this makes the network more suitable for financial products that require certainty, speed, and direct finality. Limits of Bitcoin for Financial Applications Claver also addressed Bitcoin’s broader capabilities, stating that it lacks native support for issuing assets and more complex financial functions. While he acknowledged ongoing efforts to adapt Bitcoin for additional uses, he characterized these as workarounds built on a system not originally designed for such purposes. He contrasted this with the XRPL’s built-in features, including decentralized exchange functionality and tools that can support compliance, digital identity, and credential frameworks. From his perspective, Bitcoin’s evolution toward a store-of-value narrative reflects these constraints. He argued that decisions made early in its development, particularly around block size and network structure, shifted it away from the peer-to-peer payment vision originally outlined for the protocol. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Institutional Readiness and Long-Term Outlook Claver concluded that large financial institutions will require networks capable of direct settlement, interoperability, and sustained high throughput. He positioned the XRP Ledger , with its sidechain strategy and focus on native functionality, as better aligned with those requirements than Bitcoin and its layered extensions. Overall, his comparison presented two distinct philosophies: one centered on preserving a base layer with limited change while adding external solutions, and another focused on building scalability and functionality into the core framework to meet the demands of modern financial markets. 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 The post Jake Claver: XRP Ledger vs Bitcoin Lightning Network appeared first on Times Tabloid .
