What to Know

  • XRP Ledger order-book trading averaged 3.57 million XRP a day in the second quarter, up 79% from a year earlier.
  • The number of accounts initiating order-book trades fell to about 1,100 a day from more than 1,860, a drop of about 41%.
  • Average XRP traded per active order-book account rose to roughly 3,200 XRP a day from about 1,070 a year earlier.
  • Average tokenized-asset and RLUSD balances on XRP Ledger reached about $4.26 billion, up from $99 million six quarters earlier.
  • Tokenized assets averaged $3.72 billion during the quarter, more than double the first quarter and over 30 times the level from a year earlier.
  • RLUSD average supply on XRP Ledger increased to $539 million from $73 million a year earlier, a gain of more than 600%.
  • Daily accounts transacting on XRP Ledger averaged about 16,600 in Q2, down 24% from a year earlier, while new accounts fell about 25% to 2,800 a day.
  • Institutional infrastructure continued to develop through tokenized Treasury settlement, permissioned-market upgrades, proposed confidentiality tools and U.S. spot XRP ETF inflows.

XRP Ledger Shows Fewer Traders, Larger Trades

XRP Ledger entered the second quarter with a striking split in its onchain activity profile: fewer accounts were actively initiating trades on its main order book, yet the volume moving through those accounts increased sharply. Order-book trading averaged 3.57 million XRP a day during the quarter, a 79% increase from a year earlier. At the same time, the number of accounts initiating those trades declined to about 1,100 a day from more than 1,860, representing a drop of about 41%.

That combination suggests activity is becoming more concentrated among a smaller group of active accounts. The average amount of XRP traded per order-book account rose to roughly 3,200 XRP a day, compared with about 1,070 a year earlier. While an account on XRP Ledger does not map directly to a single user, the data still shows a clear shift in how activity is distributed across the network. A trading firm may operate several accounts, and an individual may do the same, so the figures do not prove that institutions are replacing retail traders. They do, however, indicate that a smaller set of active accounts is responsible for a larger share of trading activity.

The concentration was also visible in the number of assets XRP changed hands against on the order book. That figure fell to about 319 a day from 480, down 18% on the year and the lowest level in the six quarters covered by the available data. For market participants, the pattern points to a ledger that is processing larger trades but across a narrower set of active accounts and trading pairs.

Order Book Gains Share of DEX Activity

The XRP Ledger decentralized exchange, or DEX, allows users to trade directly through the ledger rather than routing activity through centralized venues such as large crypto exchanges. Within that DEX ecosystem, the order book took a larger share of trading during the quarter. It accounted for 81% of DEX trading, up from 54% a year earlier.

Total DEX volume averaged 4.42 million XRP a day, about 20% higher than a year earlier. However, that figure was 16% below the first quarter of 2026, showing that the year-over-year improvement did not translate into uninterrupted quarter-to-quarter expansion. The shift therefore appears less like a broad-based surge across all measures and more like a rebalancing toward order-book activity within the ledger’s own decentralized trading infrastructure.

For technical traders and infrastructure watchers, the difference matters. A stronger order-book share can point to deeper or more preferred trading channels within the ledger’s native market structure. But the simultaneous decline in participating accounts suggests that liquidity and volume may be increasingly shaped by fewer, potentially larger, market participants rather than by a broad rise in active wallets.

Tokenized Assets and RLUSD Lift Network Value

The largest structural change came from the value held on XRP Ledger. Average tokenized-asset and RLUSD balances reached about $4.26 billion during the quarter, a dramatic increase from $99 million six quarters earlier. Tokenized assets alone averaged $3.72 billion, more than double the first quarter and more than 30 times the level from a year earlier.

RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-backed stablecoin, accounted for much of the recent increase. Average RLUSD supply on XRP Ledger rose to $539 million from $73 million a year earlier, a gain of more than 600%. The value transferred in RLUSD also rose more than ninefold. As a result, the ledger’s share of all RLUSD in circulation increased to 34% from 20%.

Stablecoins and tokenized assets are increasingly important to blockchain networks because they can bring more predictable units of account and settlement use cases into crypto infrastructure. A dollar-backed stablecoin can support payments, liquidity management and trading activity without requiring users to take direct exposure to crypto volatility. Tokenized assets, meanwhile, can represent traditional instruments onchain, potentially making settlement faster and more programmable. On XRP Ledger, the sharp increase in those balances suggests that network value is being driven not only by XRP trading but also by broader asset issuance and settlement activity.

User Activity Declines Despite Rising Value

The rise in value did not coincide with a broad increase in daily user activity. Accounts transacting on XRP Ledger averaged about 16,600 a day in Q2, down 24% from a year earlier. New accounts fell about 25% to 2,800 a day. These figures reinforce the theme of a network handling larger value flows while seeing fewer daily participants by certain measures.

The decline was not isolated to XRP Ledger. Onchain exchange volume across the broader crypto market fell 46% from a year earlier during the quarter, while transaction fees across seven of the largest programmable blockchains dropped 38%. That backdrop suggests weaker retail-style or fee-generating activity was a wider market phenomenon, not just a network-specific issue for XRP Ledger.

Even so, the contrast between lower account activity and higher value held is important. Crypto networks can grow in different ways. Some periods are characterized by surging wallets, frequent smaller transactions and speculative retail activity. Others are shaped by fewer participants moving larger balances, often linked to market-making, settlement, institutional access or tokenized asset use. XRP Ledger’s second-quarter profile leaned toward the latter pattern.

Institutional Infrastructure Continues to Expand

Several infrastructure developments during the period pointed to XRP Ledger’s continued effort to serve larger financial use cases. In May, part of a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund was redeemed with the asset leg settling on XRP Ledger in under five seconds. That type of settlement example is significant because tokenized Treasuries have become one of the more closely watched real-world asset categories in crypto markets.

Permissioned domains were also upgraded during the quarter, along with the ledger’s multi-purpose tokens. Permissioned domains allow institutions to control who can trade in a given market, an important feature for regulated participants that must meet compliance standards. In traditional finance, access controls, counterparty checks and auditability are not optional. Bringing those features closer to the protocol or market layer can make blockchain infrastructure more practical for firms that cannot operate in fully open environments.

Proposed changes aimed at adding confidentiality to tokenized assets also entered the discussion. The goal would be to allow balances and transfers to remain private while still giving issuers, auditors or regulators selective access. If implemented, that kind of model could address a common concern among institutions: the need to protect sensitive trading and balance information while still satisfying oversight and reporting requirements.

The network’s Ethereum-compatible sidechain also moved onto actively maintained software during the quarter, while RLUSD expanded across several additional blockchains. These developments suggest that XRP Ledger’s ecosystem is being positioned not only as a standalone ledger but also as part of a wider multi-chain environment where stablecoins, tokenized assets and exchange infrastructure can move across different venues.

Spot XRP ETFs Add Another Institutional Channel

U.S. spot XRP exchange-traded funds took in $273 million across the quarter, with net inflows in all three months. These products give institutions and other investors a route into XRP exposure that does not require directly holding the token. For some market participants, that distinction matters because custody, compliance and operational requirements can make direct token ownership more complex than holding shares in a regulated investment product.

The ETF inflows arrived as legal and regulatory questions continued to shape the market’s view of XRP and similar tokens. The CLARITY Act, which would settle whether tokens like XRP fall under the SEC or the CFTC, cleared the Senate Banking Committee on May 14. Regulatory classification remains a major issue for digital assets because it can influence listing decisions, product approvals, compliance obligations and institutional participation.

Taken together, the second-quarter data presents a nuanced picture. XRP Ledger had fewer active and new accounts than a year earlier, and fewer accounts initiated order-book trades. Yet the ledger also saw larger trade sizes per active order-book account, higher order-book trading, a larger order-book share of DEX activity and a sharp increase in tokenized-asset and RLUSD balances. For FXCOINZ market coverage, the key takeaway is not simply that activity fell or rose, but that the composition of activity changed. XRP Ledger appears to be handling more value through a narrower set of active channels, while infrastructure aimed at institutional use continues to build around it.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What happened to XRP Ledger order-book trading in Q2?

XRP Ledger order-book trading averaged 3.57 million XRP a day in the second quarter, up 79% from a year earlier, even as the number of accounts initiating those trades declined.

How many accounts were initiating XRP Ledger order-book trades?

About 1,100 accounts a day initiated order-book trades during the quarter, down from more than 1,860 a year earlier, representing a decline of about 41%.

Does the decline in accounts prove institutions replaced retail traders?

No. An XRP Ledger account is not necessarily one person or one institution. A trading firm can use multiple accounts, and an individual can also operate more than one, so the data shows concentration but does not prove who is behind it.

How much XRP was traded per active order-book account?

Average trading per active order-book account rose to roughly 3,200 XRP a day, compared with about 1,070 XRP a day a year earlier.

What was the average value held on XRP Ledger?

Average tokenized-asset and RLUSD balances on XRP Ledger reached about $4.26 billion during the quarter, up from $99 million six quarters earlier.

How important was RLUSD to the increase in network value?

RLUSD was a major contributor. Average RLUSD supply on XRP Ledger rose to $539 million from $73 million a year earlier, while the value transferred in RLUSD increased more than ninefold.

Did overall XRP Ledger account activity rise?

No. Accounts transacting on XRP Ledger averaged about 16,600 a day in Q2, down 24% from a year earlier, while new accounts fell about 25% to 2,800 a day.

What institutional developments affected XRP Ledger?

Developments included tokenized U.S. Treasury settlement, permissioned-domain upgrades, multi-purpose token upgrades, proposed confidentiality features for tokenized assets, sidechain software improvements and U.S. spot XRP ETF inflows.

Why do spot XRP ETFs matter?

Spot XRP ETFs provide a route to XRP exposure without requiring investors to hold the token directly, which can be useful for institutions with custody, compliance or operational constraints.

Photo by Alesia Kozik on Pexels