One measurement, plainly stated
What best means here: one document, read against a meter
What best means here is narrow on purpose: what an operator's own document says about XRP specifically, or, failing that, a standard identity-check read. It never means bonus size, game count, or an opinion formed by this site.
What best means here is a single, specific measurement, not an impression. It is what an operator's own document — a terms page, a help-centre table, a banking page — says about XRP, read against a fixed set of criteria, and nothing else feeds into it.
That is a deliberately narrow definition, and this page exists to say exactly what falls inside it and what falls outside it.
What best means here, stated plainly
An operator's score on this site reflects one thing: how much of a fixed, XRP-specific checklist that operator's own document satisfies. The checklist asks whether XRP is named in the operator's own accepted-currency list, whether it appears in a deposit list specifically, whether it appears in a withdrawal list specifically, whether a minimum amount in XRP is printed anywhere, and whether the source is a dated first-party document rather than a marketing line.
Nothing about bonus size, game selection, site design, or a general impression of an operator enters that checklist at any point. A score here says what a document states about XRP. It does not say whether an operator is enjoyable to use, generous, or well regarded — this site does not measure any of those things and does not claim to.
The two meters, side by side
Two different meters exist because not every operator's own document says anything about XRP at all, and a blank field is not the same as a zero. Where an operator's own document names XRP in a deposit or withdrawal list, that operator is scored on the five XRP-specific criteria above. Where no such document exists for an operator, the meter falls back to the network's standard identity-check criteria instead — a separate five-point read built around identity-verification clauses rather than currency lists.
These two meters are not the same measurement, and a score under one is not comparable number-for-number against a score under the other. The fallback exists purely so that every operator on the table gets a reading rather than a gap; it is not a lesser version of the XRP-specific score, and it is not evidence that an operator does or does not accept XRP — it simply means no XRP-specific document was found for that operator inside this site's reading window. Exactly which dates that reading window covers, and how the two money tests behind this site's other findings were run, are both spelled out on how this site is built.
A worked example of the checklist itself
It is easier to see what the checklist actually does by applying it to a document rather than describing it in the abstract. Wolfbet's own FAQ names XRP inside its own currency list, places XRP inside a deposit list specifically, and prints a minimum-withdrawal figure — 7.47 XRP — inside a per-coin table, all inside a dated, first-party document. That single document alone satisfies several of the five criteria this page has been describing, which is exactly the kind of reading the checklist is built to reward: not an impression of Wolfbet, just a count of which boxes that specific document actually ticks.
Contrast that with Metaspins, where the only XRP mention on file sits inside a clause about minimum bonus thresholds rather than a deposit or withdrawal list — the clause itself says as much. XRP is named in Metaspins' own document, so the first criterion is satisfied, but the clause does not confirm XRP as an accepted deposit or withdrawal coin, so the criteria that ask specifically about a deposit list or a withdrawal list are not. This site does not round that up to “XRP accepted” or down to “not on file” — it records what the document actually says, narrowly, which is a fact about a bonus table, not about a cashier.
Rocketpot's terms offer a third shape entirely: clauses 7.1 and 10.1 name the same set of coins, including XRP, in both a deposit list and a withdrawal list, which is the clearest example on file of a single operator's document confirming XRP on both sides of a transaction at once. These three examples are not the whole ranking — the full table lives elsewhere — but they show what “read against a fixed set of criteria” concretely means when applied to an actual document rather than to a general impression of an operator.
Why a fallback score is not a lower opinion of an operator
Some operators on this site's list have no XRP-specific document on file at all — their cashier may sit behind a login this site did not access, or no relevant document turned up during the reading window described on the method page. For those operators, the fallback meter measures something different: whether the operator's own terms carry an identity-check clause, whether that clause states when a check can start, whether it names a money amount, whether a document deadline is given, and whether the licence register confirms the certificate under that operator's own domain.
That fallback score should never be read as “this operator probably does not take XRP” or as a penalty for an operator this site could not fully document. It is a different, separately sourced measurement, used only because the XRP-specific one had nothing to measure for that operator. Reading a fallback score as a demotion would be exactly the kind of assumption this page exists to head off.
Why Vave carries no score
On this site, Vave sits in a featured-partner slot rather than a ranked one, and it carries no score under either meter. That is a deliberate distinction: a partner slot and a measured score are two different things, and mixing them together would make the checklist above meaningless for every operator that is scored honestly. Whatever this site says about Vave elsewhere is kept separate from the scored ranking for exactly that reason.
What a score is not
A high score under the XRP-specific meter does not mean an operator processes XRP quickly, credits deposits sooner, or runs a better cashier in any subjective sense — none of that is part of the checklist, and this site does not make that claim about any operator. It means that operator's own document, read on the date stated on the method page, satisfied more of the five XRP-specific criteria than an operator with a lower score.
Likewise, a fallback score under the standard identity-check meter is not a statement about that operator's stance on XRP at all — it exists because no XRP document was found, not because one was found and it said “no.” The two situations look different from every other one, and this page's whole purpose is to keep readers from collapsing them into the same idea.
Where the scored ranking itself lives
This page explains the method behind the ranking; it does not present the ranking itself. The full table — every scored operator, its meter, and its score — is on the home page, and it is worth reading this page first if the reasoning behind a specific score is not obvious from the number alone.
Two operators on that table sit outside the scored rows entirely, for two different reasons that this page has already covered: Vave, because a partner slot and a measured score are kept apart, and a further set of names that carry no score at all because this site has not documented enough about them to place them on either meter. Neither situation is the same as a low score, and neither should be read as one.
Applied to twelve operators plus a featured partner, that method produces the table at best ripple casinos.