Is GCUL the New “XRP Killer”? Critics Think Google is Missing the Blockchain Boat

by

Ah, Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL) – the platform that’s supposedly here to wipe the floor with XRP. But wait a minute, hold your horses – some are raising their eyebrows. They’re claiming this is more of a centralized circus than the wild, untamed blockchain it’s being advertised as.

The Battle Between Centralization and Decentralization

The freshly-minted Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL) is pitching itself as the big, bad private blockchain for digital assets. It’s like Google’s personal little sandbox for finance geeks to play in, with all the security features you could ask for. Built with a “partnership model,” GCUL isn’t looking to steal the show from existing systems – it’s more of a backup dancer. The target audience? Financial institutions. The pitch? It’ll make life easier for everyone involved. That’s nice and all, but some folks are still scratching their heads.

Oh, and let’s not forget, some have even crowned it the “XRP killer” – a title with about as much punch as a paper towel in a rainstorm. Critics, however, are quick to point out that a “killer” can’t really be a killer if it’s all tied up in a neat, centralized bow by Google.

Now, let’s not all jump on the hater bandwagon just yet. There are others who think Google’s heavy pockets and tech savvy might actually bring something useful to the table. Maybe it’s not a revolutionary blockchain, but hey, maybe it’ll be the go-to platform for niche projects too lazy or, let’s face it, too broke to build their own blockchain. Luigi D’Onorio DeMeo, the Chief Strategy Officer over at Ava Labs, predicts that instead of reinventing the wheel, companies will hop on GCUL’s bandwagon. As demand grows, DeMeo figures, most folks will choose a shortcut like Avalanche over sweating it out to build an L1 from the ground up.

Not everyone is buying this idea. Some purists are waving their “this isn’t a real blockchain” flag, claiming that permissioned systems – like GCUL – don’t fit the mold. Yann Régis-Gianas, head honcho over at Nomadic Labs, thinks Google’s latest move is more of a database than a decentralized miracle worker.

Shahaf Bar-Geffen, CEO of COTI, shares this skeptical outlook. He insists that a blockchain, regardless of how efficient, can’t be considered public unless it’s decentralized. GCUL’s cozy relationship with Google, he argues, makes it feel more like a private club rather than a public space for the people.

Can GCUL Really Be ‘Credibly Neutral’?

One of GCUL’s big claims to fame is that it’s “credibly neutral” – a term that one Google exec tossed out at launch. Well, this raised a few eyebrows. Bar-Geffen wasn’t exactly buying it. He points out that neutrality in a system controlled by a single corporate entity, like Google, is like trying to find an honest politician. Good luck with that.

Google can try to be impartial with audits and checks, but Bar-Geffen warns that a corporation is still going to do what’s best for its bottom line. He suggests that GCUL could end up just another one of Google’s notorious walled gardens – a place where only the “chosen ones” get in. And that’s not exactly a win for decentralization.

Some argue that GCUL could help solve the fragmentation in digital finance. However, critics say it could just add another layer of fragmentation. Régis-Gianas sees this as just another day at the office for Google, who’s been building “walled gardens” for years.

“The beauty of blockchains,” Régis-Gianas argues, “is composability and interoperability – things that a walled garden just doesn’t allow.” And Bar-Geffen’s not far behind, saying that the permissioned structure of GCUL is basically building a playground where only Google gets to decide who’s on the swings. Great for Google, not so much for Web3’s dream of global interoperability.

Read More

2025-09-02 07:03