A fresh debate in the crypto space has emerged over whether the cost of production significantly impacts the XRP price and the value of Bitcoin (BTC). Market expert CrediBULL Crypto has outlined how these costs influence XRP’s value compared to Bitcoin, concluding that both cryptocurrencies follow the same pricing formula. 

XRP Price Formula Mirrors That Of Bitcoin

A recent discourse on X social media has reignited discussions on whether production costs play a decisive role in determining the prices of cryptocurrencies. CrediBULL Crypto weighed in, explaining that both Bitcoin and XRP follow the same fundamental pricing model, where the cost to produce, combined with speculative and utility value, determines the market price. 

Related Reading

For Bitcoin, the analyst notes that the cost to mine, taking into account energy consumption and time, represents a significant portion of BTC’s market price. This production cost forms the “X” variable in the analyst’s pricing equation, with the remainder driven by speculative demand and utility. 

In contrast, CrediBULL Crypto highlights that XRP’s production cost is negligible, arguably near zero, meaning its market price is primarily driven by demand, adoption, and other speculative factors. Whether mined or premined, the analyst asserts that the market ultimately assigns a value above the production cost based on perceived utility and shifts in investor sentiment. 

CrediBULL Crypto’s statement comes in response to a recent clash between market expert BD and Robert Breedlove, a Bitcoin maximalist. In his post, Breedlove suggested that XRP’s “100% premined” status set it apart from Bitcoin, which he asserts is a 0% premined coin. The Bitcoin maximalist also warned investors of the potential consequences of this difference, subtly implying that XRP could be a scam token. 

BD countered, asserting that market demand, not production method, dictates price. He further emphasized that neither mining costs nor premined supply inherently determines a cryptocurrency’s long-term value. 

Demand Dictates Long-Term Survival 

Following CrediBULL Crypto’s statement, a community member argued that premined assets, like XRP, could carry higher risks, such as large-scale sell-offs or “rug pulls,” potentially driving their value to zero. They further suggested that BTC’s mined supply structure offers more protection against such scenarios. 

CrediBULL Crypto, however, pushed back, stating that production costs do not guarantee long-term survival or resilience. He noted that demand can disappear for any asset, regardless of whether it costs $5 or $100 to produce. He added that the same principle also applies to Bitcoin and XRP, which are respectively priced at $116,601 and $3.34, at the time of writing. 

Related Reading

The analyst further pointed out that just because a commodity costs money to produce does not make it inherently valuable. Without sustained interest, even a high-cost-to-produce asset could collapse in value. To illustrate this point, the analyst compared it to investing substantial resources into digging a massive hole—a process requiring real effort but might hold no value if no one finds the hole useful.

Featured image from Getty Images, chart from Tradingview.com

Two of the most chaotic token explosions of the year – Movement Lab’s Movement Scandal and the collapse of the Mantra’s OM – are sending shockwaves through the crypto market production business.

In both cases, a rapid price crash unlocked the hidden actor, suspicious tokens, revealing a secondary contract that claimed blind market participants to blind.

Unlike traditional finance, where market manufacturers offer orderly bidding spreads in regulated venues, crypto market manufacturers often operate like high stakes trading desks.

They’re not just quoting prices. They negotiate pre-launch token allocations, accept lockups, structuring the liquidity of central exchanges, and sometimes fair or advised interests.

As a result, there is a dark space where liquidity regulations are caught up in private trade, toconemics and, in many cases, insider politics.

In late April, Coindesk Exposé showed that some Movement Lab executives had conspired with their own market makers to abandon the $38 million move in open markets.

Now, some companies are questioning whether they are too casual to trust counterparties. How do you hedge positions if the token unlock schedule is opaque? What happens when a handshake quietly overrides DAO’s suggestion?

“Our approach currently includes a broader preliminary discussion and educational sessions with the project team, ensuring a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of market production,” Hong Kong-based Metalpha’s Metalpha Making Division told Coindesk in an interview.

“Our trading structure has evolved to emphasize long-term strategic alignment against short-term performance metrics, which incorporates certain safeguards against unethical behaviors such as excessive token damping and artificial trading volumes.”

Behind the scenes, the conversation is intensifying. The terms of the transaction are being examined more carefully. Some liquidity desks are reassessing how they take on token risks.

Others are demanding more severe transparency – or walking completely away from dark projects.

“The project no longer accepts an honorable reputation at face value. We have witnessed whether even established players can exploit shadow allocations or engage in harmful token sales practices.” “The era of presumed trust concludes,” he argued.

Beneath the refined surface of the token is the announcement of the announcement and the sorting of market production agreements. There is another layer of cryptocurrency. In the secondary OTC market, locked tokens quietly exchange hands before they hit the public eye before they win the cliff.

Trading beneath these tables, often struck between early supporters, funds and syndicates, is currently distorting supply dynamics and findings of distorted prices, some traders say. And for market makers tasked with providing orderly fluidity, they are becoming increasingly opaque and dangerous variables.

“The secondary OTC market has changed the dynamics of the industry,” said Min Jung, an analyst at Presto Research, which runs the market production division. “When you look at tokens with questionable price actions like $layer, $om, $mov, etc., they are often the most aggressively traded in the secondary OTC market.”

“The entire supply and vesting schedule is skewed due to these out-of-market transactions, and because of liquid funds, the real challenge is to get a sense of when the supply is actually unlocked,” Jung added.

In a market where prices are fiction and supplies are negotiated in the back room, actual risk is not volatility for traders. I believe float is what the white paper and founders say.

Read more: Movement Lab secretly promises millions of people with tokens that promise to be advisors, leaked documentary show

Freezing edge technology: A new plasma-based etching process could lead to denser data storage in phones, cameras, and computers. Researchers have developed a hydrogen fluoride plasma technique that doubles the etching rate in the manufacturing process of 3D NAND flash memory chips.

Standard NAND flash storage is used in microSD cards, USB drives, and solid-state drives in computers and phones. To fit more gigabytes into smaller spaces, manufacturers have begun stacking memory cells vertically in a process called 3D NAND.

Advancements in 3D NAND have pushed chip designs beyond 200 layers, with companies like Micron, SK Hynix, and Samsung already eyeing 400-layer technology to increase storage density. However, higher layer counts also bring greater manufacturing complexity. One particularly demanding process is etching, which requires meticulously carving precise holes, layer by layer, through alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers.

Researchers from Lam Research, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) have developed a new technique to streamline the process. It uses cryogenic (low-temperature) hydrogen fluoride plasma to etch the holes. In experiments, the etch rate more than doubled, increasing from 310 nanometers per minute with the old method to 640 nm/min with their approach. They also found that the etched holes were cleaner.

Seeing benefits, the researchers experimented with adding a few other ingredients to the hydrogen fluoride plasma recipe. Phosphorus trifluoride acted as a nitrous boost for silicon dioxide etching, quadrupling the rate. They also tested ammonium fluorosilicate. The team detailed its findings in a study published in the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology.

Seeing benefits, the researchers explored adding a few other ingredients to this hydrogen fluoride plasma recipe. Phosphorus trifluoride acted as a nitrous boost for the silicon dioxide etching, quadrupling that rate. They also tested out ammonium fluorosilicate. The full findings can be found in the study published in the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology.

While some challenges remain, the new technique could overcome a significant manufacturing hurdle. Igor Kaganovich, a principal research physicist at PPPL, pointed out that increasing memory density will be crucial as data demands grow with AI adoption.

It’s too early to say if this will result in cheaper or denser NAND chips for consumers. The technique still needs to be proven commercially viable and scaled for mass production. Even if manufacturers adopt the process, there’s no guarantee that any cost savings will trickle down to consumers.