XRPL Commons confirmed on January 27 via X post that it has voted in favor of two key XRP Ledger amendments after completing full end-to-end testing on Devnet. XRPL Commons confirmed on January 27 via X post that it has voted in favor of two key XRP Ledger amendments after completing full end-to-end testing on Devnet.

Why XRPL’s Latest Governance Vote Matters for Institutional DeFi

2026/01/28 09:00
3 min read

XRPL Commons confirmed on January 27 via X post that it has voted in favor of two key XRP Ledger amendments after completing full end-to-end testing on Devnet. The group approved Permissioned Domains under XLS-80 and Permissioned DEXs under XLS-81, following a governance vote held on January 23, 2026. 

The decision marks a step toward enabling regulated financial activity on XRPL without changing its open and decentralized design.

The amendments aim to support institutions that require compliance controls, such as identity verification and restricted counterparty access. XRPL Commons said its vote was based on successful testing results and operational stability observed during Devnet deployment.

What Permissioned Domains and DEXs Add to XRPL

Permissioned Domains allow operators to define controlled environments on the XRP Ledger. Domain operators decide which credentials are valid, and accounts holding those credentials automatically gain access. 

This structure makes it possible to apply regulatory requirements like KYC checks while keeping the core ledger permissionless.

Permissioned DEXs extend the native XRP Ledger decentralized exchange by introducing domain-restricted order books. Only members within the same permissioned domain can trade with each other, ensuring all participants meet predefined compliance conditions.

The amendments introduce three offer types. Open offers follow existing XRP Ledger DEX behavior. Permissioned offers restrict trading to a single domain. Hybrid offers allow trades to match within a domain first before accessing open market liquidity. 

All functions rely on XLS-70 credentials, which provide an on-chain method for verifying account attributes such as compliance status.

Devnet Testing Results and Technical Findings

The complete lifecycle of the new features was manually tested in Devnet by XRPL Commons. This involved the creation and revocation of credentials, the administration of domains, and open, permissioned, and hybrid DEX trades.

The tests established that the membership of domains refreshed automatically whenever the credentials were altered and that the non-members were not allowed entry into the restricted order books.

Correctly, hybrid provides domain liquidity first and then resorts to the open DEX. The expired credentials were revoked automatically and rejected unauthorised trades as intended. Every XLS-70, XLS-80, and XLS-81 worked as specified.

An operational problem that was found during initial testing was the IOU configuration. To be able to use proper trade routing, issuers need to enable the DefaultRipple, users need to create trust lines, and issuers need to clear the NoRipple flag on the trust lines. 

Failure to do this step led to the failure of trades, and configuration accuracy is very important to institutions.

Why the Vote Matters for Institutional DeFi

XRPL Commons indicated that it was in favor of the amendments since it provides a sensible trade-off between compliance and decentralization.

Its features allow it to be used in the following use cases: stablecoin foreign exchange, payroll, international business settlements, and corporate treasury.

Although liquidity is confined to domains and no trade can cross permissioned environments, this was said to be a trade-off purposely made to satisfy regulatory expectations. Having the approval, XRP Ledger advances a step further towards being a regulation-ready settlement layer of on-chain finance.

Also Read: XRP Ledger Velocity Hits 2025 Peak As ETFs Near $1 Billion Inflows

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

The post Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A crypto whale lost more than $6 million in staked Ethereum (stETH) and Aave-wrapped Bitcoin (aEthWBTC) after approving malicious signatures in a phishing scheme on Sept. 18, according to blockchain security firm Scam Sniffer. According to the firm, the attackers disguised their move as a routine wallet confirmation through “Permit” signatures, which tricked the victim into authorizing fund transfers without triggering obvious red flags. Yu Xian, founder of blockchain security company SlowMist, noted that the victim did not recognize the danger because the transaction required no gas fees. He wrote: “From the victim’s perspective, he just clicked a few times to confirm the wallet’s pop-up signature requests, didn’t spend a single penny of gas, and $6.28 million was gone.” How Permit exploits work Permit approvals were originally designed to simplify token transfers. Instead of submitting an on-chain approval and paying fees, a user can sign an off-chain message authorizing a spender. That efficiency, however, has created a new attack surface for malicious players. Once a user signs such a permit, attackers can combine two functions—Permit and TransferFrom—to drain assets directly. Because the authorization takes place off-chain, wallet dashboards show no unusual activity until the funds move. As a result, the assets are gone when the approval executes on-chain, and tokens are redirected to the attacker’s wallet. This loophole has made permit exploits increasingly attractive for malicious actors, who can siphon millions without needing complex hacks or high-cost gas wars. Phishing losses The latest theft highlights a wider trend of escalating phishing campaigns. Scam Sniffer reported that in August alone, attackers stole $12.17 million from more than 15,200 victims. That figure represented a 72% jump in losses compared with July. According to the firm, the most significant share of August’s damages came from three large accounts that accounted for nearly half…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 02:31
Why is the Trump-backed WLFI Token Price Up Today?

Why is the Trump-backed WLFI Token Price Up Today?

The post Why is the Trump-backed WLFI Token Price Up Today? appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News World Liberty Financial’s native token WLFI, backed by the
Share
CoinPedia2026/02/09 18:54
Unlock 24/7 Crypto Blackjack Customer Support Now

Unlock 24/7 Crypto Blackjack Customer Support Now

Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions - Experts in Crypto Casinos Did you know BC.Game supports
Share
Cryptsy2026/02/09 19:33