thecryptobasic.com
Dr. Camila Stevenson, a health and finance expert, has revealed why banks and other financial institutions may need the XRP price to be higher.
Recently, XRP has remained under bearish pressure as the broader crypto market continues to struggle. Since October, the global crypto market has lost more than $1.3 trillion, and XRP has followed that trend. Over the past three months, XRP has declined by 33%, leading to increasing bearish sentiments.
However, some analysts and commentators warn that those who focus only on short-term price action may be missing the more important picture.
Watching XRP’s Price Can Be the Wrong Approach
One of these individuals is Dr. Camila Stevenson, a health and finance commentator, who recently explained why banks and institutions may actually need the XRP price to be higher for the system to function properly.
In a recent video commentary, Stevenson argued that most investors ask the wrong questions about XRP. To explain, she used an infrastructure analogy, pointing out that engineers do not judge a bridge by today’s cost.
Instead, they ask how much weight it can carry, how much stress it can withstand, and whether it still works when the system comes under pressure.
Stevenson said the XRPL architects designed XRP in the same way. According to her, people who ask why XRP’s price has not moved yet still think like consumers and traders. She suggested that the important question should be about what the architects built the system to handle when pressure appears.
How Retail Think Vs How Institutions Think
Stevenson then highlighted a major difference between retail investors and institutions. Specifically, she said retail participants tend to look at assets “from the outside in,” focusing on charts, candles, price levels, and short-term movements.
Meanwhile, institutions do the opposite. According to her, they analyze assets “from the inside out” and ask what problem the asset solves, how it performs under stress, whether it can move value at scale, and whether it functions during market instability.
Stevenson explained that the difference between how retail and institutions think has led to much of the confusion around XRP. She stated that XRP was never designed to behave like a speculative asset first. Instead, the architects built it as “financial plumbing.” Notably, such infrastructure only draws attention when it fails.
According to Stevenson, large financial systems do not fail simply because prices fall. They fail when money cannot move, when settlement takes too long, when liquidity fragments, when slippage rises, and when counterparty risk explodes. When it affects institutions, these issues can be catastrophic.
She explained that retail investors ask, “What can I sell this for later?” while institutions ask, “Can this asset carry massive flows without breaking the system?” Stevenson said XRP seeks to answer the second question. This aligns with what analyst XFinanceBull said, urging investors to think about XRP in flows and not in price.
Why Banks Prefer a Higher XRP Price
Stevenson emphasized that XRP is not a company, not equity, and does not represent ownership in Ripple. Instead, it acts as a liquidity instrument.
Due to its fixed supply, XRP cannot scale by creating more units. As a result, the market pundit said the only way it can support larger transaction volumes would be when each unit represent more value.
Stevenson explained that the XRPL architects designed XRP to function as a bridge, not a bet. Institutions do not aim to profit by flipping settlement assets. They want to move money safely and efficiently.
According to her, a higher XRP price improves efficiency because banks moving billions prefer fewer units that represent more value rather than millions of small units. Interestingly, the Ripple CTO, David Schwartz, made similar statements when he argued in 2017 that “XRP cannot be dirt cheap.”
Speaking further, Stevenson added that institutions often position themselves off-exchange, through custodians, OTC desks, and private agreements. These activities do not show up as dramatic price moves on charts.
In fact, Stevenson argued that sudden price spikes during positioning would signal instability, not success. Essentially, stability, deep liquidity, predictable settlement, and quiet absorption of supply matter more to these firms.