Rewrite In a recent analysis, Samson Mow, CEO of Bitcoin infrastructure company JAN3, offered a critical perspective on the valuation of XRP and other altcoins in relation to Bitcoin. Known for his bold predictions, including a forecast that Bitcoin could hit $1 million by 2025—driven by what he calls “omega candles”—Mow reignited a heated debate about the real worth of alternative cryptocurrencies.
On April 19, Mow posted on X (formerly Twitter), stating that many investors have a distorted view of altcoins because of what he terms “unit bias.” To illustrate the point, Mow compared the market capitalizations of popular altcoins as if they had the same limited supply as Bitcoin, which is capped at 21 million coins.
He argued that if XRP’s total market cap were distributed over just 21 million tokens—similar to Bitcoin’s supply—each XRP token would be worth approximately $5,800. Using the same calculation, Ethereum (ETH) would cost around $9,200 per token, and Solana (SOL) about $3,400. “No way these alts are worth that much,” Mow remarked, emphasizing that the current values of these coins are inflated when properly contextualized.
This evaluation was grounded in simple math: Mow divided each coin’s market cap by 21 million to simulate a direct, one-to-one comparison with Bitcoin’s scarcity model. He believes this method removes the illusion of affordability many altcoins project due to their massive supplies.
Unit Bias: Misleading New Investors
Mow delved into the psychology behind “unit bias,” a tendency where inexperienced investors gravitate toward coins that appear cheap because they are priced lower per unit. He criticized this misconception, writing, “Most alts take advantage of unit bias by utilizing a very high supply. XRP is only $2, but Bitcoin is too expensive at $85,000! Unit bias is absolutely destroying the uninitiated.”
This mindset, he argues, leads new investors to believe they are getting more value by purchasing whole altcoins rather than fractions of Bitcoin—often causing them to misjudge the actual value they are receiving. Mow ended his commentary with a bold prediction, asserting, “Alts are overvalued. Bitcoin is undervalued. Act accordingly,” suggesting that Bitcoin’s market dominance could rise in the near future.
Legal and Market Context
XRP’s valuation has remained a topic of interest, especially with ongoing legal developments. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals approved a 60-day pause in the case between Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This pause, as previously reported by CNF, is intended to allow both parties time to pursue settlement negotiations, potentially signaling that the long-running legal battle is nearing its conclusion.
In terms of price action, Bitcoin recently reached a high of $88,404 before settling near $87,269. Meanwhile, XRP has experienced a modest gain, currently trading at around $2.08—a 0.24% increase on the day.
As discussions continue around crypto valuations and investor behavior, Mow’s analysis adds another layer to the ongoing evaluation of what truly constitutes value in the digital asset space. His emphasis on removing psychological bias to expose true worth is a cautionary reminder for investors navigating the often speculative world of altcoins.
Comparing XRP and bitcoin valuations
Comparing XRP and Bitcoin Valuations
When it comes to crypto valuations, numbers can be deceiving—especially when unit counts and market caps are misunderstood. Samson Mow, CEO of Bitcoin infrastructure firm JAN3, recently broke down the math in a way that turns heads and challenges assumptions. According to Mow, the apparent affordability of altcoins like XRP is a mirage created by their massive token supplies, and when you adjust for this, the comparison to Bitcoin gets… well, awkward for XRP fans.
To cut through the noise, Mow proposed a simple mental exercise: what would happen if XRP, Ethereum, and other altcoins had the same fixed supply as Bitcoin—21 million units? If XRP’s entire market capitalization were divided among just 21 million tokens, each XRP token would have to be priced at roughly ,800 to equal its current valuation. That sounds impressive—until you realize it only highlights the inflationary nature of XRP’s actual supply.
And it’s not just XRP. Mow applied the same logic to other altcoins to reveal the following hypothetical valuations:
- Ethereum (ETH): Approximately ,200 per token
- Solana (SOL): Around ,400 per token
- XRP: Roughly ,800 per token
These numbers are not predictions—they’re illustrative tools meant to expose how inflated token supplies can distort perceived value. Mow’s point is that most investors don’t consider market cap or supply mechanics when buying crypto. Instead, they focus on price per coin, falling into what he calls the “unit bias” trap.
The takeaway? XRP’s lower per-token price isn’t necessarily a bargain. When you normalize for supply, its valuation starts to look suspiciously lofty compared to Bitcoin’s. Mow’s framework suggests that the true value of an asset lies not in how many tokens you can buy, but in what each token represents in terms of scarcity, utility, and long-term demand.
In a world where Bitcoin’s supply is permanently capped and backed by robust infrastructure and institutional adoption, XRP’s seemingly low entry point may be more of a red flag than a green light. Mow’s analysis urges investors to dig deeper than surface-level prices and to examine the economic fundamentals that underpin each asset.
Why XRP’s lower price doesn’t mean better value
Why XRP’s Lower Price Doesn’t Mean Better Value
It’s tempting, isn’t it? You open your crypto app, see XRP trading at just over , and think, “Wow, I can get 40 of these for the price of 0.001 Bitcoin!” But according to Samson Mow, that’s exactly the kind of thinking that leads investors astray. The low sticker price of XRP might look like a steal, but when you peel back the layers, it’s more illusion than opportunity.
This is where the concept of unit bias rears its deceptive head. Investors—especially those new to crypto—often gravitate toward coins with low per-unit prices, assuming they’re undervalued or have more room to grow. But Mow argues this is a psychological trap. The real question isn’t how many tokens you get—it’s what those tokens are actually worth when measured by utility, scarcity, and long-term viability.
Let’s break it down further:
- Scarcity: Bitcoin’s supply is permanently capped at 21 million. XRP, on the other hand, has a maximum supply of 100 billion, with over 50 billion already in circulation. That’s an enormous difference in scarcity, and scarcity drives value.
- Utility: XRP’s primary use case is for cross-border payments via Ripple’s network. While that’s a legitimate application, it hasn’t yet translated into widespread adoption or consistent demand that would justify a high valuation.
- Network Effect: Bitcoin has become the de facto reserve asset of the crypto world. It’s held by institutions, traded globally, and integrated into financial products like ETFs. XRP’s ecosystem remains comparatively niche and is still battling regulatory uncertainty in the U.S.
So when Mow says that XRP would need to be worth ,800 per token to match Bitcoin’s market cap under equal supply conditions, he’s not just throwing out big numbers for shock value. He’s illustrating how tokenomics can distort perceived value. If XRP really had the same scarcity as Bitcoin, would the market support that kind of price? Mow’s answer is a resounding “no.”
Even more telling is how this perception influences investor behavior. Buying 100 XRP might feel more satisfying than owning 0.001 BTC, but that feeling doesn’t equate to better investment fundamentals. As Mow put it, “Most alts take advantage of unit bias by utilizing very high supply.” It’s a strategy that plays on human psychology rather than solid economics.
This isn’t to say XRP has no value. It does have real-world applications, particularly in Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) product, which is used by some financial institutions to facilitate faster cross-border payments. But the scale and impact of that utility are still limited compared to Bitcoin’s broader adoption as a store of value and hedge against inflation.
Mow’s critique is not just about numbers—it’s about mindset. Crypto investors need to approach the market with a deeper understanding of what drives value. That means looking beyond the price tag and evaluating the mechanics behind each token. Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it’s a good deal—especially in crypto, where appearances can be deceiving and supply mechanics matter more than most realize.
Insights from JAN3 CEO on crypto fundamentals
Insights from JAN3 CEO on Crypto Fundamentals
Samson Mow isn’t just throwing jabs at altcoins for the sake of controversy—his critique is rooted in a broader philosophy about what makes a cryptocurrency fundamentally valuable. As the CEO of JAN3, a company laser-focused on building Bitcoin infrastructure globally, Mow has long championed the idea that Bitcoin isn’t just another digital asset—it’s the base layer of a new financial paradigm. So when he compares XRP to Bitcoin, it’s not just about price per coin—it’s about architecture, purpose, and economic integrity.
At the heart of Mow’s argument is the notion that many altcoins, including XRP, lack the structural fundamentals that support long-term value. While XRP does serve a function—namely, facilitating cross-border transactions via RippleNet—Mow suggests that its use case is narrow and overly reliant on the success of a single company. In contrast, Bitcoin operates as a decentralized, permissionless network with no central authority, making it resilient and censorship-resistant.
Let’s examine the key fundamentals that Mow believes set Bitcoin apart from XRP and other altcoins:
- Monetary Policy: Bitcoin’s issuance is governed by a transparent, immutable protocol. Every 210,000 blocks (approximately four years), the block reward is halved in an event known as the “halving,” reducing the rate of new supply. This predictable scarcity is a cornerstone of Bitcoin’s value proposition. XRP’s supply, by contrast, was pre-mined, and large amounts are still held by Ripple Labs—a setup that some critics argue introduces centralization and potential supply shocks.
- Decentralization: Bitcoin is maintained by a global network of miners and nodes, ensuring no single party can control its direction. XRP’s ledger, while technically decentralized, has faced criticism for its reliance on a list of trusted validators and Ripple’s significant influence over network governance.
- Security and Immutability: Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism is energy-intensive, but it’s also what makes the network incredibly secure and nearly impossible to tamper with. XRP uses a consensus protocol that is faster and more energy-efficient but arguably less battle-tested and less resistant to certain types of attacks.
In Mow’s view, these differences aren’t just academic—they have real consequences for long-term value and adoption. Bitcoin is increasingly being adopted by nation-states (see El Salvador and potentially others), integrated into institutional portfolios, and used as collateral in financial markets. XRP, despite years of development and partnerships, remains constrained by regulatory challenges and a narrower set of use cases.
Mow also takes issue with the marketing strategies that many altcoin projects employ—particularly the emphasis on speed, low fees, and partnerships. “Being fast and cheap doesn’t make something money,” he once remarked. In his eyes, the obsession with transaction throughput often ignores the trade-offs in security and decentralization. For Mow, true value lies in building a censorship-resistant, trustless monetary system—not just a faster payment rail.
One of the most telling aspects of Mow’s position is his confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term trajectory. His “omega candles” theory—a term he coined to describe sudden, explosive price moves in Bitcoin—reflects his belief that the market will eventually reprice Bitcoin dramatically higher as its fundamentals and scarcity become more widely understood. Altcoins, by contrast, may lag or even collapse if their perceived value isn’t backed by real demand and utility.
So, when Mow says XRP would need to hit ,800 to match Bitcoin under a 21 million token model, he’s not just making a provocative statement. He’s inviting investors to rethink their criteria for evaluating digital assets. Are you buying into a robust, decentralized, and secure monetary system? Or are you buying into a marketing narrative built on supply tricks and speculative hype?
For Mow, the answer is clear—and it’s spelled B-I-T-C-O-I-N.
Market perception versus intrinsic value
Market Perception Versus Intrinsic Value
In the crypto world, perception often moves faster than fundamentals. Shiny partnerships, influencer endorsements, and flashy price pumps can easily sway market sentiment—but as Samson Mow argues, these surface-level attributes rarely reflect the true, intrinsic value of a digital asset. And when it comes to XRP, Mow believes the disconnect between perception and reality is particularly stark.
Despite its relatively low price, XRP continues to enjoy a loyal following and significant trading volume. Much of that enthusiasm is fueled by narratives: the promise of revolutionizing cross-border payments, the high-profile legal battle with the SEC, and the hope that Ripple’s partnerships with financial institutions will eventually drive mass adoption. But Mow urges investors to look deeper—to ask whether these narratives are grounded in actual, sustainable value or simply speculative hype.
One key issue is that XRP’s value proposition is heavily tied to Ripple Labs, the company that created and continues to promote the token. While RippleNet and its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) service do offer real-world utility, Mow contends that the reliance on a centralized entity creates a fragile ecosystem. If Ripple falters—whether due to legal setbacks, market shifts, or internal missteps—XRP’s utility could diminish rapidly. Compare that to Bitcoin, which operates independently of any company or founder and continues to grow organically through global adoption and decentralized infrastructure.
Another point of contention is the idea that XRP is “undervalued” simply because it’s cheaper per coin. As Mow’s ,800-per-XRP analogy demonstrates, this belief often stems from a misunderstanding of token supply dynamics rather than a sober assessment of demand, scarcity, and use case. The market may perceive XRP as a sleeping giant, but that perception doesn’t automatically translate into intrinsic value—especially when much of the token’s supply remains in the hands of Ripple and its affiliates.
Consider how XRP is marketed versus how Bitcoin is perceived. XRP’s messaging often centers around speed, cost-efficiency, and banking partnerships. These are attractive features, but they’re not unique—other networks, including Stellar and Algorand, offer similar capabilities. Bitcoin, meanwhile, is increasingly viewed as digital gold: a hedge against inflation, a sovereign store of value, and a foundational layer for a decentralized financial future. That’s a much broader and more resilient narrative, backed by a decade of technological and economic validation.
According to Mow, the crypto market is still maturing, and with that maturation will come a shift in how investors evaluate projects. The days of chasing “cheap” coins based on price alone may be numbered. Instead, investors will begin to prioritize:
- Network resilience: Is the protocol secure, decentralized, and censorship-resistant?
- Monetary integrity: Does the asset have a fixed, transparent supply and sound issuance model?
- Adoption potential: Is the asset being integrated into real financial systems, or is it dependent on speculative interest?
By these metrics, Bitcoin scores significantly higher than XRP. And while XRP may still play a role in specific financial applications, Mow warns that its broader market appeal is largely built on shaky ground. The perception of XRP as a “cheap Bitcoin alternative” is, in his view, unsustainable once investors begin to understand the deeper mechanics at play.
That’s why Mow’s message is resonating with a growing segment of the crypto community: don’t just buy what looks cheap—buy what holds value. And in a world where narratives can shift overnight, intrinsic value is the anchor that helps investors weather the volatility and emerge with real gains.