History of XDC Network

History of XDC Network: From Consortium Vision to Hybrid Layer-1 Protocol

The XDC Network’s origin is rooted in a consortium-style vision—initially developed by Singapore-based company XinFin (short for “Exchange Infinite”). The project was architected to bridge the gap between traditional banking systems and decentralized solutions, specifically targeting enterprise-grade use cases, including trade finance and cross-border settlement infrastructure. Unlike many crypto projects that began as grassroots ventures or developer-driven open-source communities, XDC emerged from a more centralized and foundationally corporate ethos.

XinFin launched the “XDC Protocol” as a fork of Ethereum's go-ethereum client, modified to support a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus combined with KYC/AML-mandated validator onboarding. This centralized gatekeeping of validator nodes sparked early criticism, especially as the crypto community increasingly leaned toward permissionless infrastructures. Nevertheless, the network maintained full EVM compatibility, allowing Solidity-based dApps and smart contracts to be deployed with ease. This design choice positioned XDC as a hybrid layer-1 platform: permissioned enough for regulated players, permissionless enough for open-source developers.

The public mainnet for XDC Network went live under the name “XinFin Mainnet” in 2019. Initial token distribution was opaque, with limited details on early backers or allocation mechanics, further driving skepticism from decentralization purists. While adoption remained modest in its first stage, XinFin strategically shifted toward forging credibility via enterprise partnerships, particularly in the trade finance sector—a niche largely ignored by most crypto projects. Integration into platforms like the TradeFinex network, a venture with connections to public-private partnerships, solidified its trajectory toward use-case specificity over mass-market appeal.

A pivotal moment in the project's evolution came with a gradual transition in branding: from a XinFin-controlled chain to the more community-friendly designation of the XDC Network. Although XinFin Limited retains notable influence (and effective control) over critical aspects like roadmap development and technical implementation, the rebrand aimed to align more closely with decentralized project ethics seen across the space, such as what's explored in decentralized-governance-the-heart-of-polygon-s-matic and empowering-decentralization-governance-in-icp.

Despite these efforts, the governance model remains somewhat ambiguous. Validators are theoretically decentralized, but onboarding still requires XinFin approval. Community proposals exist in name, but few have been publicly executed, raising ongoing concerns in line with critiques observed in ecosystems like critiques-of-moonbeam-challenges-ahead-for-glmr.

Today, XDC positions its architecture as optimized for interoperability, low gas fees, and institutional-grade performance. However, the legacy of its heavily centralized inception continues to define both its technical governance and perception in broader crypto discourse.

How XDC Network Works

How the XDC Network Operates: Delegated Proof-of-Stake, Hybrid Architecture, and Layered Interoperability

The XDC Network (XinFin Digital Contract) deploys a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism, optimized for high-throughput enterprise applications. Unlike traditional PoS architectures, XDC limits validator nodes (masternodes) to a fixed number, boosting efficiency while reducing network congestion. Validation requires XDC token collateralization, which disincentivizes malicious behavior but also leads to validator centralization—a point of concern in terms of decentralization ethos.

XDC’s chain architecture is a hybrid of public and permissioned ledgers. This bifurcation allows XDC to meet enterprise compliance requirements—data privacy, identity management, and auditing—by delegating sensitive operations to private sidechains while maintaining public state verifiability. However, the interplay between private and public layers introduces complexity, particularly regarding finality assumptions and data transparency across the trust boundaries.

The core network is EVM-compatible, enabling deployment of Ethereum-standard smart contracts without modification. But XDC discourages heavy computation on-chain due to its lightweight consensus model. This makes it suitable for tokenized assets and financial messaging solutions but suboptimal for compute-intensive DeFi primitives like flash loans or zero-knowledge proofs. For an examination of related DeFi limitations, see https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-unsung-mechanics-of-flash-loans-navigating-decentralized-finances-double-edged-sword.

Network parameters, such as block time (~2 seconds) and transaction finality (~2 seconds), enable rapid settlement. Combined with low gas fees and deterministic transactions, this setup aligns with supply chain and trade finance use cases, though at the cost of validator diversity and censorship resistance.

Interoperability is addressed through the XDC Interoperability Bridge, which allows wrapping and locking of assets from Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, and other networks. While functional, these bridges come with typical fragmentation and custodial concerns. Moreover, limited liquidity in wrapped XDC variants can harm cross-chain utility, a common challenge also seen across other multi-chain platforms like those explored in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-unexplored-terrain-of-cross-chain-defi-building-bridges-to-a-unified-financial-ecosystem.

Smart contract deployment uses Solidity, with support for off-chain computation via oracles. However, oracles are not natively integrated and require third-party solutions, potentially introducing or weakening trustless assumptions. Lack of modular governance in the base protocol further limits the network’s adaptability to decentralized applications with more complex economic models or governance requirements.

XDC’s architecture, while efficient for enterprise tokenization, remains constrained in areas like decentralized governance, permissionless composability, and support for Web3-native privacy solutions.

Use Cases

XDC Network Use Cases: Bridging Traditional Finance and Decentralized Systems

The XDC Network operates a hybrid blockchain design optimized for real-world enterprise use cases, particularly in trade finance and institutional asset tokenization. Its permissioned consensus mechanism (XDPoS 2.0) supports high throughput with finality while enabling interoperability with private and legacy systems. This makes XDC’s practical deployment scenarios distinct from purely public blockchain ecosystems.

Trade Finance and Supply Chain Integration

One of the XDC Network's core use cases lies in digitizing trade finance instruments. Legacy systems in trade finance—like bills of lading, letters of credit, and invoices—are notoriously paper-heavy, slow, and prone to fraud. Through smart contract automation and tokenization, XDC enables asset provenance tracking, faster settlement, and improved transparency for regulators and banks.

Initiatives like the Trade Finance Distribution Initiative (TFDi) have explored leveraging the XDC Network to bring liquidity to trade receivables. However, integration with traditional custody systems still relies on bridging centralized features such as bank KYC processes, creating potential pressure points for decentralization purists.

Tokenized Real-World Assets (RWAs)

The tokenization of real-world assets such as bonds, commodities, and real estate is another growing domain. XDC’s EVM compatibility allows these assets to be deployed as smart contracts with programmable compliance and automatic settlement mechanisms. Institutional partners have issued tokenized bonds via platforms that interface with the XDC protocol, offering programmable interest payouts and transparency of ownership.

That said, performance bottlenecks can emerge when projects require cross-chain synchronization. While the XDC blockchain executes efficiently, off-chain legal frameworks governing tokenized RWAs often lag behind, introducing friction when these assets are ported into mainstream capital markets.

Cross-Border Payments and FX Settlement

XDC aims to streamline cross-border settlements by replacing SWIFT’s multi-intermediary message flow with peer-to-peer protocol settlement. Its low transaction fees and fast finality (2 seconds) make it suited for micropayments and remittance flows, especially between financially underserved corridors.

However, regulatory clarity remains vague in key jurisdictions, especially around whether stablecoins and wrapped fiat tokens (often used alongside XDC) are treated as securities or payment instruments. Without robust interbank adoption, these cross-border use cases may remain siloed within crypto-native environments.

Enterprise Interoperability

XDC supports both public and permissioned blockchain interactions via its smart contract layer, making it appealing for consortia deploying hybrid solutions. This includes integrating with ERP systems or legacy trade systems for automated invoice financing, similar to how other hybrid chains like Zilliqa propose scalability improvements (https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unlocking-zilliqa-key-use-cases-explained).

Realistically, enterprises often hesitate to move critical infrastructure to decentralized networks due to audit compliance, GDPR requirements, and integration complexity. While XDC architecturally addresses some of these gaps, actual industry rollout has been uneven.

XDC Network Tokenomics

XDC Tokenomics: Analyzing Supply Dynamics, Utility, and Incentive Structures

The XDC token underpins the XDC Network, a hybrid L1 blockchain optimized for enterprise-grade applications and trade finance. At its core, XDC functions as both a staking and gas token within the ecosystem. Its tokenomics structure is designed for high-throughput operations, but not without critical tradeoffs in decentralization and emission transparency.

Total Supply and Distribution Challenges

XDC has a maximum total supply of 37.5 billion tokens, with no inflationary tail risk since the supply is fixed. However, a significant portion—over 50%—was initially allocated to ecosystem development, team, and pre-allocation tranches, raising ongoing concerns about centralization risk. Token unlock schedules are not fully transparent, which complicates modeling long-term supply behavior for institutional actors. This lack of clarity hinders trust in the token’s economic equilibrium, especially when compared to openly documented distributions like those analyzed in Decoding Rocket Pool RPL Tokenomics.

Staking and Validator Incentives

While the XDC Network employs a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) mechanism, validator participation remains sparse due to relatively low staking yields and limited slashing deterrents. Token rewards for validators are issued from pre-allocated reserves rather than from on-chain transaction fees alone, presenting sustainability concerns once reserves deplete. The long-term viability of incentive alignment requires re-engineering or supplemental off-chain funding models, a challenge familiar across many DPoS networks, particularly those critiqued in SUI Blockchain Major Critiques and Concerns Unveiled.

Gas Fees and Network Utility

XDC is utilized to pay network gas fees, which are designed to be extremely low to support enterprise use cases. While this benefits throughput, it also marginalizes the token’s burn mechanics, limiting its deflationary pressure and diminishing utility-driven demand. The network currently lacks systemic features to increase on-chain token velocity, such as native DeFi primitives or staking derivatives, unlike ecosystems analyzed in Unlocking Rocket Pool RPL's Key Roles in Crypto.

Liquidity and Exchange Penetration

Though XDC is listed on select centralized and decentralized exchanges, liquidity remains fragmented. This impairs on-chain composability and arbitrage opportunities for professional market participants. The lack of consistent token bridges to other major smart contract platforms further constrains capital mobility and hinders XDC’s integration into multi-chain DeFi ecosystems—a limitation with parallels to bridging critiques seen in Critiques of Moonbeam Challenges Ahead for GLMR.

Without a comprehensive multi-year emissions roadmap or active community governance over token flows, XDC’s tokenomics rely heavily on centralized stewardship—a design choice that prioritizes operational efficiency, but at the cost of composability and decentralization assurances.

XDC Network Governance

Dissecting Governance on the XDC Network: Decentralization, Challenges, and Centralized Influence

The governance architecture of XDC Network is notably hybridized, reflecting a tradeoff between decentralization and operational efficiency. While blockchains with fully decentralized governance models amplify community autonomy, XDC Network strategically leans into a more federated approach in its current state, blending enterprise compatibility with some decentralized protocols.

At the core of XDC’s governance are its validator nodes. Operating on a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) system, XDC limits the number of validators to a relatively small group. This capped node model is designed to maintain high transaction throughput and fast finality. However, this design choice inevitably raises concerns about network centralization. A limited validator set—selected by XDC’s native foundation and consortium participants—means that power is concentrated among a few actors rather than dispersed across a trustless, open ecosystem.

Token holders within the XDC ecosystem currently face constrained influence over governance parameters. There is no publicly active DAO-like mechanism where token-weighted proposals can be submitted and voted on by the broader community. This lack of community-anchored policy steering separates XDC sharply from governance-transparent ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/empowering-decentralization-governance-in-icp or https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decentralized-governance-in-rocket-pool-explained—projects that have implemented robust on-chain voting mechanisms that reflect token holder consensus directly.

The XDC Foundation plays a central role in driving protocol development, economic modeling, and ecosystem grants. While foundations can catalyze technical progress, their outsized influence can suppress community-driven innovation and decision-making. The absence of a public treasury governed by token holders further sidelines the collective input of the network’s users.

Smart contract upgrades and protocol changes are proposed and implemented in a closed-loop governance flow involving core developers and the foundation. Such opacity raises concerns for institutional stakeholders who prioritize transparency in network evolution. Comparative ecosystems such as https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-graph-governance-power-to-the-community demonstrate more layered governance structures with grants councils and technical curations overseen by elected community members, improving legitimacy.

In application-specific contexts, the lack of permissionless governance could limit DeFi composability or integration with external protocols that depend on DAO-like interpretability and accountability. Legacy validators or node operators are unlikely to be affected, but new developers evaluating governance policies as a criterion for deployment may view XDC’s structure as a bottleneck.

While XDC’s focus on enterprise-grade compliance justifies many of these central design decisions, the absence of transparent, modular governance layers continues to divide the community between those prioritizing speed and those demanding decentralization.

Technical future of XDC Network

XDC Network: Technical Roadmap and Upcoming Developments

The XDC Network, built on a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus and leveraging the XDPoS 2.0 upgrade, is focused on enterprise-grade applications, particularly trade finance and institutional asset tokenization. Its technical roadmap introduces a shift from incremental development toward broader compatibility, protocol hardening, and infrastructure decentralization.

One of the most critical developments lies in the implementation of XDC 2.0—a network-wide upgrade poised to introduce forensic monitoring and double-spend protection at the consensus layer. This move diverges from its earlier focus on throughput optimization, signaling a desire to attract institutional partners by aligning with regulatory compliance needs. The tradeoff, however, might be increased complexity in validator operations and more stringent node requirements, which could contradict its decentralization ambitions.

Interoperability is also emerging as a design priority. XDC is enhancing its compatibility with EVM tooling but is also exploring bridges beyond Ethereum. Though wrapped XDC (wXDC) already exists on select chains, secure, native interoperability remains nascent. Comparative projects like those described in The Unexplored Terrain of Cross-Chain DeFi: Building Bridges to a Unified Financial Ecosystem highlight the complexity XDC faces—especially with regard to security in cross-chain message relaying.

Another technical leap is planned via the integration of zero-knowledge (ZK) proof mechanisms. The roadmap indicates initial work on ZK-based privacy layers for select transaction types—particularly aimed at meeting privacy-preserving requirements for tokenized real-world asset (RWA) use cases. While theoretically compelling, implementation of ZK on a hybrid blockchain like XDC that connects to legacy systems introduces systemic friction, which may slow rollout.

Decentralization also remains an unresolved bottleneck. While XDC uses a DPoS variant, a limited number of validator slots and a semi-permissioned onboarding process have raised recurring concerns about validator concentration. Comparable concerns exist in other networks too, as explored in The Overlooked Layer of Accountability in Decentralized Finance: The Role of Compliance Protocols in Ensuring Trust.

Upcoming milestones include a push toward open validator elections, governance tooling for on-chain protocol parameters, and performance enhancement via light clients and stateless architecture components. However, the lack of clear timeframes and community voting transparency continues to spark skepticism among developers and stakers.

Ultimately, XDC's technical developments sit at the intersection of enterprise compatibility and decentralization trade-offs—two ambitions that often conflict in both strategic execution and infrastructure design.

Comparing XDC Network to it’s rivals

XDC Network vs XRP: A Deep Dive into Enterprise Blockchain Trade-Offs

When evaluating the XDC Network against XRP (Ripple), the comparison often centers on enterprise adoption, settlement architecture, and compliance-oriented functionality—yet the divergence in technical design and ecosystem trajectories reveals substantial differences.

At the core, both platforms aim to streamline cross-border value transfers, but XDC builds primarily on a permissioned Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) model via the XDPoS consensus mechanism, whereas XRP operates a federated consensus protocol that validates transactions through a default Unique Node List (UNL). XRP’s model minimizes energy usage and provides swift finality, but its centralization concerns remain unresolved in parts of the crypto community, especially since Ripple Labs controls a significant stake in XRP holdings and core validator influence.

XDC’s DPoS implementation presents another narrative: token stakers elect validators, decoupling consensus participation from mining or default lists. This enhances decentralization optics, although the validator pool remains relatively small, raising questions about network resilience under stress. Additionally, XDC’s use of the EVM-compatible chain allows a broader spectrum of smart contract interoperability, something XRP lacks natively. XRP's smart contract capabilities—enabled through XRPL Hooks and sidechains—still trail behind Ethereum-compatibility in developer tooling and active usage.

Another distinct edge for XDC lies in its linkage to real-world trade through the TradeFinex framework, which targets digitization of trade finance instruments such as invoices and letters of credit. In contrast, XRP focuses more on liquidity provisioning (via On-Demand Liquidity) and traditional remittance rails. This gives XRP a stronger foothold with banking institutions, but limits flexibility in complex supply chain scenarios.

From a compliance and identity standpoint, XDC’s hybrid architecture—supporting both private and public chain interactions—provides regulators with audit-friendly structures, especially in context of ISO 20022 messaging alignment. XRP also claims ISO compatibility, but its full integration relies on institutional infrastructure adopting its Ledger format. Both networks face criticism for their vague decentralization narratives and top-heavy governance structures.

While neither asset resides within the mainstream DeFi space, XDC’s Ethereum alignment does allow some crossover into interoperable finance, positioning it for potential play in areas like decentralized identity frameworks or cross-chain lending, as explored in The-Overlooked-Role-of-Decentralized-Identity-in-Enhancing-Web3-Privacy-and-Security. XRP, in contrast, still lacks clarity on how its ecosystem extends beyond RippleNet implementations.

Ultimately, the XDC-XRP rivalry underscores a broader tension between hybrid enterprise blockchains and incumbents doubling down on remittance-centric pathways.

XDC Network vs. Stellar Lumens (XLM): Settlement Speed, Cost Efficiency, and Enterprise Focus

When comparing XDC Network to Stellar Lumens (XLM), the conversation quickly centers around how both approach fast, low-cost financial settlements—but with differing architecture and target markets. Both networks focus on cross-border payments and tokenization of value, yet the trade-offs in protocol design, decentralization, and enterprise utility become pronounced when analyzed side-by-side.

Stellar Lumens leverages the Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP), which prioritizes speed and energy efficiency through a federated byzantine agreement model. Its average settlement time is ~5 seconds and fees are extremely low (~0.00001 XLM). XDC utilizes a modified version of delegated proof-of-stake (XDPoS 2.0), allowing for 2-second block finality and sub-penny transaction costs while integrating KYC/AML-ready features. While both chains aim for speed and affordability, XDC’s block finality and transaction throughput edge ahead in high-load enterprise environments.

Where XDC differentiates is its unapologetic alignment with regulatory-friendly enterprise use cases. ISO 20022 compatibility, native support for trade finance protocols like TradeTrust and TFD Initiative, and on-chain identity standards position XDC for institutional integration. Stellar, while also serving the remittance sector, stays closer to retail applications and NGO-focused deployment—evident from partnerships with MoneyGram and support for cash-based off-ramps.

From a token utility standpoint, XLM serves primarily as a bridge asset and fee resource. Its inflation model was deprecated, and supply is now fixed. XDC’s role is broader: powering smart contracts, staking for validator selection—which introduces more complex tokenomics—but also a potential centralization drawback given its fixed validator count and master node reliance.

Developer ecosystem growth is another divergence. Stellar employs its own SDK architectures and more purpose-built tools for payments, while XDC from the early stages aligned with EVM compatibility. This allows XDC to tap into Ethereum-based developer tools and dApps—offering broader interoperability within DeFi and enterprise applications. For builders aiming to leverage an Ethereum-like environment with lower gas fees, XDC becomes a more accessible choice.

However, Stellar’s transparency and longer track record do speak in its favor. As highlighted in A Deepdive into Stellar Lumens, its open governance model provides more community input than XDC’s semi-permissioned validator system. Developers and enterprises must weigh that tradeoff between regulatory structure and decentralization ethos when choosing protocols.

Ultimately, the differences underscore a philosophical divide: Stellar is increasingly retail-accessible with NGO adoption, while XDC positions itself for regulated institutional finance—a space that’s evolving, not without friction.

XDC vs ALGO: A Technical Comparison of Hybrid Blockchain Architectures

When stacking XDC Network against Algorand (ALGO), the starkest contrast lies in design philosophies and consensus mechanisms, both tailored to support enterprise-grade solutions but via deeply divergent infrastructures.

Consensus Model & Performance Trade-offs

XDC Network employs a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) mechanism with a layer of practical Byzantine fault tolerance (pBFT), enabling faster finality and low transaction costs. ALGO, in contrast, utilizes Pure Proof of Stake (PPoS), a consensus model built around cryptographic sortition. While PPoS minimizes the risk of validator concentration and enhances decentralization, it introduces probabilistic finality—less deterministic than XDC’s immediate finality in most cases.

From a throughput standpoint, Algorand touts sub-5 second block times at over a thousand transactions per second (TPS). However, these figures are not always achieved under smart contract loads due to limitations in its AVM (Algorand Virtual Machine). XDC, while generally lower on raw TPS, leverages its hybrid model to offload certain transaction types to permissioned nodes, improving efficiency in enterprise workflows like trade finance and invoice factoring.

Smart Contract Ecosystem Gaps

Algorand’s AVM supports custom smart contracts, but lacks broad compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). This restricts its ability to attract Solidity developers and necessitates rewrites for dApps. XDC, on the other hand, features native EVM support, which allows seamless deployment of Ethereum dApps without modification. This significantly lowers integration friction for dev teams and cross-chain protocols.

Given the growing interest in multichain operability—a topic explored in The Unexplored Terrain of Cross-Chain DeFi—this EVM alignment gives XDC a distinct advantage for bridging assets and logic across chains.

Regulatory and Permissioned Use Cases

XDC is explicitly designed with compliance in mind, incorporating features like permissioned subnetworks and whitelisted institutions. These capabilities enable regulated financial entities to engage in blockchain-based operations while maintaining necessary oversight. Algorand, though it markets itself to institutional use cases, does not provide baked-in support for hybrid public-private ledger setups, which limits its appeal in high-compliance sectors.

Cost Efficiencies

Transaction fees on ALGO are predictably low but fixed—currently at 0.001 ALGO. XDC reportedly achieves sub-cent costs, but offers dynamic fee structures that better reflect network state and scalability needs. For applications processing high volumes of microtransactions, such nuanced control over gas settings can have noticeable implications on op-ex and UX.

In summary, while Algorand’s probabilistic consensus and non-EVM infrastructure aim for future-proof decentralization, these choices introduce trade-offs in composability and enterprise customizability—domains where XDC continues to optimize its hybrid model.

Primary criticisms of XDC Network

The Limitations and Criticisms of the XDC Network: A Deep Dive

Despite presenting itself as an enterprise-grade hybrid blockchain tailored for trade finance, the XDC Network (formerly XinFin) has garnered several pointed criticisms across technical, strategic, and ecosystem dimensions. These concerns warrant close inspection, particularly for crypto-native users evaluating its relevance against competing Layer-1s or B2B-focused chains.

One recurring critique lies in the limited decentralization of the validator set. Although XDC positions itself as a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) network, its validator nodes are relatively few and subject to high entry barriers due to the substantial staking requirements. This centralization risk is particularly notable in environments where enterprise use cases are equated with enhanced trust and resilience. Unlike networks such as Ethereum or Rocket Pool's decentralized validator layer, XDC's architecture introduces concerns about concentrated authority and potential censorship.

Further, while XDC targets institutions through a permissioned-public hybrid model, this design raises questions about composability and interoperability—core pillars in today’s DeFi infrastructure. The bifurcation between public and private states can lead to exclusions from typical DeFi incentives and liquidity mining strategies, making it less attractive for developers looking to tap into programmable finance environments akin to Polygon or Solana.

Also worth noting is the relatively opaque ecosystem development. Unlike visually open development models with transparent roadmaps and active GitHub contributions, XDC has often drawn criticism for insufficient documentation, unclear progress updates, and developer tooling limitations. This has, in turn, stunted organic developer adoption and innovation. The contrast with ecosystems like Sui, which actively focus on modularity and developer experience, is striking.

Interoperability shortcomings also amplify these limitations. While the network claims cross-chain compatibility via bridges, these integrations are often underfunded or reliant on third-party infrastructures, presenting security vectors and limiting seamless asset flow. Without robust modular tooling and native interoperability frameworks like Moonbeam's cross-chain capabilities, the XDC Network risks isolation from broader Web3 composability.

Lastly, XDC's emphasis on real-world trade finance, while niche, anchors it to industry integrations that often progress slowly due to regulatory and institutional inertia. In a crypto landscape where time-to-market is critical, this can dilute relevance—particularly in retail-driven or experimental use cases that fuel growth in ecosystems like Chiliz's fan engagement models.

These critical considerations suggest that while XDC may serve specific institutional functions, it faces mounting pressure to evolve its governance, tooling, and openness to maintain strategic relevance.

Founders

Meet the Founders of XDC Network: Visionaries, Corporate Roots & Governance Debates

The XDC Network, originally launched as XinFin, was co-founded by Atul Khekade, a prominent figure with a history in enterprise tech and blockchain-based financial solutions. Khekade is best known for his role in architecting enterprise-grade blockchain applications, positioning XDC as a network aiming to bridge traditional finance (TradFi) with decentralized infrastructures. His early efforts were tied to developing use cases around supply chain finance, particularly centered on trade finance digitization—a niche but fertile blockchain application area.

Before diving into blockchain, Khekade co-founded companies delivering enterprise and cloud-based tech services. That experience reflects heavily in XDC’s ethos: a focus on compliance, enterprise integrations, and ISO 20022 interoperability—a rarely emphasized standard in decentralized networks, but one that aligns with global financial institutions. XDC’s founding strategy wasn’t to chase retail hype; its roots trace back to enterprise-consortia models and private-public hybrid blockchain infrastructure.

The corporate connection doesn’t stop at ideology. XDC Foundation, the nonprofit supporting ecosystem growth, is closely aligned with Tradeteq—a fintech focused on trade finance—and MyContract, a smart contract platform. Critics argue this proximity to centralized organizations undermines decentralization. Several ecosystem decisions, such as validator approvals and strategic partnerships, have historically lacked transparency, raising concerns about opaque internal governance.

Another core figure tied to the early development of XDC is Ritesh Kakkad, who has a background in cloud hosting and IT infrastructure. While not as publicly active in recent discussions, his early influence helped shape the technical deployment of the network. However, the project has not fostered a transparent culture around its dev and contributor base. Unlike projects such as Meet the Visionaries Behind Chiliz's Blockchain Revolution or Meet the Visionaries Behind Helium's IoT Revolution, XDC maintains a more closed development loop, with limited GitHub conversations or developer community contributions visible externally.

This has prompted critiques about siloed decision-making and lack of DAO alignment. As the broader Web3 ecosystem trends toward decentralized, community-driven governance (exemplified in projects such as Decentralized Governance in Rocket Pool Explained), XDC faces scrutiny for operating more like a consortium-led ledger than a permissionless L1.

Despite these criticisms, the founding team's enterprise alignment carved a unique path distinct from most DeFi-native chains—one where regulatory compliance and ISO standards dictate more than raw decentralization.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://www.xdc.org
• https://xdc.org/whitepaper/XDC-Whitepaper.pdf
• https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain
• https://xdc.org/tokenomics
• https://xdc.org/enterprise
• https://xdc.org/ecosystem
• https://docs.xdc.community/
• https://docs.xdc.community/technical-documents/xdc-consensus-algorithm
• https://docs.xdc.community/infrastructure/xdc-network-node-architecture
• https://explorer.xdc.org/
• https://xdc.community/
• https://github.com/XinFinOrg/xdc-go
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/xdce-crowd-sale
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/xinfin-network
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/xinfin-network/
• https://www.xdc.org/newsroom
• https://medium.com/xinfin
• https://xdc.dev/
• https://defillama.com/chain/XDC
• https://dappradar.com/blockchain/xdc