DFSRegulated
United States Crypto Asset Exchange License (CEX)
Ripple
Regulated in Singapore
Crypto Asset Exchange License (CEX)
Global Business
Basic Information
Country/RegionUnited States
Exchange AbbreviationRipple
Operating Period10-15 years
Websitehttps://ripple.com/
RiskNotice
1 risk alerts
NMLSRegulated
United States Crypto Asset Transfer License (MTL)
NMLSRegulated
United States Crypto Asset Transfer License (MTL)
MASRegulated
Singapore Crypto Asset Exchange License (CEX)
CSSFRegulated
Luxembourg Crypto Asset Transfer License (MTL)
DFSARegulated
United Arab Emirates Crypto Asset Custody License (CUST)
FCAActive
United Kingdom Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP)
Exchange Overview
Exchange Overview
What is Ripple?
Ripple is a leading provider of cross-border payment and digital asset custody solutions, focusing on stablecoin-driven cross-border payments and blockchain technology.
Main Business
The platform provides institutions with capabilities such as prime brokerage, tokenization, and custody, enabling instant global fund transfers between stablecoins, cryptocurrencies, and fiat currencies, helping financial institutions upgrade their infrastructure and participate in the digital asset economy.
Business Region
InfluenceA0
2
4
6
8
10
News
1356
XRPL Batch Wrapper Bug: A Consensus and Indexer Failure Prevented
XRPLs October 9 security report describes a second, independent flaw in the Batch transaction feature. Unlike the payment-engine overflow, this bug threatened ledger availability and data compatibility, not the supply of XRP. A crafted inner-transaction wrapper could have been interpreted differently by servers on different versions. The developers say Batch had not been activated on Mainnet when the bug was found, and no funds were lost and no consensus failure occurred.Why a field name could split a network Batch allows a group of signed transactions to be submitted together. Each inner transaction is supposed to be carried inside a field called RawTransaction. The faulty validation logic accepted other object-type wrapper fields if that field had no restrictive template. Older xrpld 3.3.0 and newer 3.4.0 defined different object fields. A deliberately nonstandard Batch payload could be accepted and relayed by one version but fail deserialization in another. If enough validators ran the incompatible combinations, the trusted validator group could disagree on the contents of a ledger and potentially stop validating new ledgers. The technical issue is distinct from private-key theft. Every inner transaction still required ordinary valid signatures and balance checks. The attacker could not simply authorize another users payment without that users signature.
XRPL Payment Overflow: How a Critical XRP Supply Bug Was Patched
The XRP Ledger avoided a potential supply-integrity failure that, in a deliberately constructed test, could have created spendable XRP beyond the protocols intended total supply. RippleXs October 9 disclosure describes a critical arithmetic bug that had remained in the payment engine since 2015. The project states it found no evidence of exploitation on any public network. Developers released xrpld 3.4.1 on September 25; the issue is now patched, not an active confirmed minting event. The widely repeated 18 trillion XRP example comes from security researcher Cayden Liaos proof-of-concept estimate. It illustrates possible severity; it is not the amount created on Mainnet and not a financial loss.How one payment could overpay hundreds of offers XRPL payments can consume multiple offers in the native order book. The vulnerable code added the XRP amounts owed across offers using unchecked 64-bit integer arithmetic. If a maliciously constructed group of offers caused the sum to exceed the integers limit, the total could wrap around to a small number. The engine credited each seller for the full sale while charging the buyer the wrapped total. This was not an everyday overflow condition. The attack required hundreds of attacker-controlled accounts offering tiny amounts of another token in exchange for extraordinarily
A 12-Year Dormant Bitcoin “Ancient Whale” Makes an Emergency Move: Risk Avoidance or Being Hunted?
On August 4, 2026, late at night Beijing time, a strange ripple suddenly appeared beneath the surface of the crypto market. A Bitcoin address that had remained completely dormant since 2013 — 18TExP — suddenly became active. 500 BTC (worth approximately $31.3 million) were transferred the moment the transaction was confirmed on-chain. This wallet had been asleep for a staggering 12 years and 8 months, making it even older than the birth of Ethereum. 500 BTC Transferred from the 18TExP Address (Source: CoinDesk) Just as people began speculating whether this was the reappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto himself, another far more chilling backdrop emerged: Coldcard, known as the “fortress” of Bitcoin hardware wallets, had just been exposed with a critical security vulnerability, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of BTC being stolen. The discovery process of this vulnerability further demonstrated both the power and the threat of AI. After the Coldcard team released a security advisory in late July, someone submitted the source code to Claude Code, an AI coding model, for review. The AI identified the exact line of code responsible for the randomness failure in just eight minutes. The revival of an ancient Bitcoin whale and the fatal Coldcard wallet vulnerability happened
