When a veteran of traditional trading like Peter Brandt speaks, the market listens… even when they disagree. His new comment on XRP not only pointed to the asset but reignited a debate that never really closed.
It's not a technical discussion
It's an ideological discussion
And that's why he keeps coming back.
🔍 What is really happening
Brandt's criticisms are not only focused on price or on a chart pattern. They point to the narrative, the model, and the perception of long-term value.
XRP, for its part, represents just the opposite of what many classic traders consider 'pure crypto'.
This clash of visions explains why each statement divides the market into irreconcilable factions.
🔥 The points that reactivate the controversy
• Traditional vs crypto-native
Brandt analyzes from a classic market logic. XRP operates in a realm where utility, institutional adoption, and regulation weigh as much as price.
• Narrative against use cases
While some see XRP as an asset without decentralized essence, others read it as a practical solution for payments and settlements on a global scale.
• Influential opinion, not definitive
Brandt has a history, but no monopoly on the truth. His voice carries weight because he represents a part of the capital that still views crypto through traditional lenses.
🌐 Why this clash matters to everyone
1. It exposes the gap between classic traders and the new digital market.
2. It forces a distinction between opinion and real structure.
3. Remember that the value of an asset is built over time, not in a tweet.
This type of debate does not weaken the market
They force it to mature.
💡 Useful advice (value for your community)
When influential figures attack or defend an asset, ask yourself:
• Are they speaking from price, ideology, or structure?
• Do their criticisms align with current data or with past visions?
• What part of the market do they really represent?
That's where the noise of the analysis filters through.
‼️Peter Brandt will criticize again
XRP holders will respond again
But the market does not move through discussions
It moves through adoption, liquidity, and time
The key question is not who wins the debate
If not, which vision will ultimately be validated by facts.
