Long before cryptocurrencies became synonymous with retail speculation and market cycles, U.S. government researchers were already evaluating distributed systems through a very different lens. Their focus was not on price action or decentralization narratives, but infrastructure resilience, identity assurance, and trust at the national scale.
In that quieter domain of space and defense research, certain technologies were assessed for their ability to operate securely within regulated environments—an assessment that now appears strikingly prescient.
That context has resurfaced following a recent post by Pumpius, who drew attention to a largely forgotten 2018–2019 U.S. Space and Defense research paper. The document distinguishes between blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) and, in doing so, explicitly classifies Ripple as a trusted, open-permissioned ledger designed for banks, identity systems, and real-world infrastructure.
Why the Paper Separates Blockchain From DLT
A core contribution of the research lies in its clarification of terminology. The paper explains that blockchain is only one form of DLT, characterized by cryptographically linked blocks arranged in a chronological chain.
DLT, however, is a broader architectural category that may not rely on blocks at all. Instead, it focuses on distributed data replication, consensus, and integrity across multiple servers.
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary of Bethlehem! 🤯
US Space & Defense research paper RIPPLE as a trusted, open-permissioned ledger built for banks, identity, access control & real-world infrastructure. 👇 https://t.co/J5jL9Ose20
— Pumpius (@pumpius) December 21, 2025
For the space and defense sectors, this distinction matters. These environments require high throughput, deterministic performance, and strict governance—characteristics that are often incompatible with fully open, permissionless blockchains.
As a result, the paper consistently favors DLT as the more adaptable and realistic solution for government and industrial use.
Ripple’s Designation as Trusted Infrastructure
Within its classification of DLT models, the research identifies Ripple as an example of an open-participation, permissioned ledger. In this structure, the ledger remains publicly accessible, but validation authority is restricted to approved nodes.
The paper explicitly describes Ripple as “trusted,” reflecting its suitability for regulated environments where accountability and access control are non-negotiable.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
The researchers further note that Ripple (XRP) was created for banks and payment networks, enabling direct, real-time asset transfers that reduce cost and complexity while improving transparency. This framing places Ripple firmly outside the realm of retail crypto experimentation and squarely within institutional financial architecture.
Identity and Access Management as the Real Adoption Layer
Rather than focusing on speculative use cases, the paper emphasizes where DLT adoption actually scales: identity and access management, certification, verification, and regulated settlement. These functions are foundational to national infrastructure, particularly in sectors involving licensing, export control, cybersecurity, and compliance.
The research also highlights that transformative technologies integrate gradually. Like electricity or the TCP/IP protocol, DLT must overcome regulatory, organizational, and political barriers before its full impact is realized—a process measured in decades, not market cycles.
XRPL and the Privacy Layer: the Paper Anticipated
What the 2018–2019 research could only outline conceptually is now being implemented on the XRP Ledger. XRPL is incorporating zero-knowledge credentials, selective disclosure mechanisms, and verifiable identity frameworks that enable compliance without exposing lots of data. These developments directly address the identity and access challenges identified in the defense paper.
As privacy-focused protocols like DNA Protocol progress on the XRP Ledger (XRPL), the ledger is evolving into a privacy-preserving national infrastructure rather than consumer-facing crypto rails.
The significance of the research paper is not historical curiosity. It reveals that Ripple’s architecture was evaluated, categorized, and effectively validated for state-grade use years ago. Far from aging out, the paper has aged into relevance—underscoring that XRP Ledger is not pivoting toward institutional adoption, but fulfilling a blueprint written well ahead of its time.
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News
