Ripple has enabled deployment for Ethereum and Solana within its institutional custody business, going beyond custody to include asset management features that large investors are increasingly seeing as standard.
The new capability, delivered through a partnership with staking infrastructure provider Figment, allows Ripple Custody customers to offer staking on large proof-of-stake networks without setting up a validator infrastructure.
This service offers operational simplicity with institutional controls, a combination aimed at banks, custodians and regulated asset managers who want to invest returns but do not want staking operations to fall outside their governance perimeter.
This move also highlights a structural difference between XRP and the proof-of-stake assets that institutions typically hold alongside it. Ethereum and Solana can generate protocol rewards. XRP can’t do that, at least not today.
For custodian clients comparing crypto services to familiar concepts like securities lending income or cash returns, that gap matters.
Figment’s role in institutional quality staking
Ripple’s choice of Figment highlights what institutions prioritize when requesting staking: separation of duties, operational certainty, and an auditable framework.
Fabrication say Ripple selected it for its track record of serving more than 1,000 institutional clients, its non-custodial architecture, and its focus on regulated participants.
This architecture is important in practice because many institutional buyers prefer that custody and validator operations remain separate functions. They want clear lines around who controls assets, who manages infrastructure and how risks are monitored.
Staking also poses a type of operational risk that traditional custody clients immediately recognize. The performance requirements of validators introduce failure modes, and the results associated with slashing can be difficult to explain if governance and control standards are unclear.
For regulated companies, the question is often less “can we earn rewards” and more “can we earn rewards in a way that survives compliance review and audit review.”
Figment has also emphasized trust signals built for institutional due diligence, including full certification under the Node Operator Risk Standard (NORS), which monitors node operators for security, resilience and governance.
These categories are closely aligned with the due diligence checklists that typically shape procurement decisions in the regulated financial sector.
Ripple’s integration aims to turn staking into a custody function that behaves like a workflow and not an infrastructure project.
This positioning is in line with the way in which the storage market has developed. Institutions are increasingly trying to reduce the proliferation of multiple suppliers. They want services bundled under a controlled business model, with reporting and accountability.
XRP does not offer a protocol staking, and the XRPL staking debate is not in the implementation phase
The addition of Ethereum and Solana staking also highlights what XRP does not offer: protocol-level staking rewards.
That omission becomes tangible at the guardianship level. An XRP-only platform can store assets, support transfers, and provide reporting, but it cannot provide a recurring on-chain returns program through XRP’s own mechanisms.
In an environment where staking yield is considered a baseline expectation for proof-of-stake assets, the custody menu can feel incomplete.
Meanwhile, Ripple’s ecosystem is exploring what XRP Ledger (XRPL) staking could look like, but these discussions point to economic limitations, not cosmetic ones.
RippleX developers have outlined two requirements for any native staking design on XRPL: a sustainable reward source and a fair distribution mechanism.
Notably, XRPL’s long-standing approach is to reduce transaction costs rather than redistribute them. Validator’s trust is earned through performance rather than financial interests.
That means staking requires an economic redesign, not a simple upgrade that turns on rewards.
There is also a process signal in the XRPL development pipeline. The ledger’s well-known amendment tracker currently shows no strike-related changes in development or voting.
This does not rule out future work. However, it does reinforce that staking is not in an active implementation phase on XRPL.
This distinction is practical for institutional custody clients. The returns from Ethereum and Solana exist today, are measurable today, and can be operationalized today. On the other hand, XRP native staking remains a debate with unresolved economic issues.
XRP inflows are strong anyway, even as institutions rotate their risk
The expansion of the custody product is underway, as XRP-linked investment products see stronger weekly inflows than Ethereum and Solana-linked products, according to recent weekly data.
CoinShares reported that XRP-led investment products raised $63.1 million last week. During the same period, Solana’s products raised $8.2 million, and Ethereum’s raised $5.3 million.
However, Bitcoin-focused products saw strong negative sentiment, with outflows of $264 million this week.
These numbers show aggressive rebalancing, with investors trading and reshaping their positions as prices move, rather than a simple wave of accumulation.
The flow data underlines a point that custodial buyers often quickly confront.
A token can attract institutional allocations through investment products, while still lacking the servicing function that commissions increasingly expect from proof-of-stake assets.
Essentially, the XRP question and the completeness of the XRP product are different questions.
In light of this, Ripple’s response is to separate the roles within its institutional stack. XRP remains positioned as the nexus in the company’s preferred rails, while Ethereum and Solana deliver returns within the custody perimeter.
Ripple keeps XRP front and center through an institutional DeFi roadmap
Ripple has made it clear that adding stakes on other networks is not intended to diminish the importance of XRP in its strategy.
Instead, the company’s recent ‘Institutional DeFi’ roadmap positions the XRPL as a high-value chain for tokenized finance, with compliance tools and programmability designed for regulated use cases.
Ripple describes the role of XRP, which spans reserve requirements, transaction fees (which burn XRP), and automatic bridging in currency and credit flows.
The roadmap also highlights on-chain privacy, permitted markets and institutional lending as features set to go live in the coming months.
That framework positions XRP as infrastructure, and not as a means of income.
It also supports a multi-asset custody approach, allowing institutions to earn returns on Ethereum and Solana within a controlled custody workflow and then use XRPL rails.
In that model, yield is a characteristic that helps bring institutions within the perimeter of custody. XRPL is positioned as the environment in which Ripple wants more on-chain activity to occur, subject to compliance-forward restrictions.
And XRP is presented as the connecting asset for bridging, collateral flows and fees.