SOIL Token Launch Sparks XRP Ledger Controversy
The XRP Ledger community is facing renewed controversy after an on-chain analyst accused yield protocol SOIL of allowing connected wallets to profit from XRP liquidity during its XRPL token launch.
The analyst claimed that wallets receiving SOIL tokens directly from the issuer quickly sold them through automated market maker pools. However, the SOIL team has strongly rejected the accusations and said the wallets were bridge addresses rather than insider accounts.
Analyst Questions SOIL Selling Activity
An on-chain analyst known as “Skeptic” argued that blockchain data did not show significant selling pressure from ordinary SOIL holders.
Instead, the analyst claimed that much of the selling came from wallets that received tokens directly from the issuer. According to Skeptic, these wallets then sold SOIL into XRP Ledger liquidity pools shortly after receiving the assets.
One wallet reportedly received approximately 68,766 SOIL through 20 transactions before exchanging the tokens for around 11,457 XRP.
A second wallet allegedly received 17,098 SOIL and later sold close to 17,998 tokens for roughly 6,769 XRP. Meanwhile, a third wallet reportedly received 20,000 SOIL and sold approximately 17,628 tokens for about 6,683 XRP.
Based on this activity, Skeptic argued that the launch resembled issuer-led distribution followed by rapid selling rather than natural price discovery.
XRP Community Allegedly Used as Exit Liquidity
The analyst further claimed that XRP Ledger users may have been used as exit liquidity during the SOIL launch.
SOIL was already available on Ethereum, Polygon and several centralized exchanges, including MEXC, Gate.io, BitMart and BVOX, before its XRPL debut.
At the same time that SOIL tokens were being sold through XRP Ledger markets, the token reportedly recorded strong price growth elsewhere. CoinMarketCap data showed SOIL rising by around 53% within 24 hours, climbing from approximately $0.06147 to $0.09861.
Skeptic argued that XRP Ledger liquidity was absorbing issuer-linked supply while prices on other markets remained stronger. The analyst described the situation as unprofessional and questioned whether the launch had been properly managed.
SOIL Team Rejects Insider-Profit Allegations
The SOIL team firmly denied the claims. It said the sharp price movement on XRP Ledger decentralized exchanges was caused by strong demand interacting with limited liquidity.
According to the project, the team does not control SOIL’s market price. Instead, traders and arbitrage activity determine price differences between exchanges.
SOIL also disputed the claim that the wallets identified by Skeptic belonged to project insiders. The team said the addresses were bridge wallets used to transfer tokens between blockchain networks.
The protocol explained that price differences between decentralized and centralized exchanges are common when market-making activity is limited.
Limited Liquidity Blamed for Price Differences
SOIL maintained that its available liquidity functioned correctly until demand increased rapidly.
The team said arbitrage traders responded to the price difference as expected by buying tokens on one market and selling them on another. From SOIL’s perspective, this was normal market activity rather than evidence of insider dumping.
However, Skeptic continued to criticize the launch. The analyst argued that the project had failed to prepare enough liquidity to handle the level of demand.
RLUSD Deposits Not Part of the Allegations
The dispute intensified after another community member questioned whether locked RLUSD deposits could be at risk.
Skeptic clarified that there was no evidence suggesting that RLUSD deposits were in danger. The analyst emphasized that the criticism focused specifically on the SOIL token launch and its liquidity management.
The controversy arrives as the XRP Ledger expands its decentralized finance ecosystem. It also follows a recent milestone in which XRPL reportedly surpassed Ethereum in terms of RLUSD supply.
For now, the disagreement remains unresolved. The analyst continues to question the token distribution and liquidity structure, while SOIL insists that bridge activity, limited liquidity and normal arbitrage explain the transactions.
