While some have dubbed Google Cloud Universal Ledger an “ XRP killer,” critics remain skeptical, arguing that its centralized control by Google runs counter to the core principles of decentralization.
The Debate Over Centralization vs. Decentralization
The recently launched Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL), a private and permissioned blockchain, is being positioned as a secure platform for managing the full lifecycle of digital assets. Built on a “partnership model,” GCUL is designed to complement existing business frameworks rather than compete with them. Targeted at financial institutions, the platform promises significant benefits for both service providers and their clients.
Although some have dubbed GCUL an “ XRP killer,” its debut has left parts of the industry skeptical. Critics argue that no matter how large or well-resourced a platform may be, it cannot be considered truly decentralized if it is owned or controlled by a single entity.
Others, however, see Google’s technical expertise and financial strength as key advantages. They suggest that rather than building a blockchain from scratch, niche-focused projects may find it more efficient to launch on GCUL. This view is echoed by Luigi D’Onorio DeMeo, Chief Strategy Officer at Ava Labs, who anticipates that well-funded, crypto-forward enterprises will increasingly opt to deploy their own Layer 1 chains.
“As the market matures and demand increases, most companies will not be willing to build a chain from scratch and will instead opt for a stack such as Avalanche, which allows them to launch their own L1 in minutes,” DeMeo explains.
That perspective is challenged by those who reject the notion that permissioned systems qualify as blockchains. Yann Régis-Gianas, Head of Core Engineering at Nomadic Labs, argues that while Google may succeed in attracting partners to GCUL, its lack of decentralization means it functions more like a database than a blockchain.
Shahaf Bar-Geffen, CEO of COTI, shares this sentiment, asserting that a blockchain cannot be considered public regardless of its efficiency.
“While GCUL is positioned as a Layer 1, its private and permissioned nature—managed solely by Google—diverges significantly from the ethos of public chains like Ethereum. A centrally controlled chain like GCUL might offer greater efficiency for specific institutional use cases, but it will not inherit the benefits of being fully decentralized and ‘trustless,’” Bar-Geffen argues.
Is GCUL ‘Credibly Neutral’?
At its launch, GCUL was reportedly described by one Google executive as a “credibly neutral” platform—a claim that sparked debate.
In written comments to Bitcoin.com News, Bar-Geffen called Widmann’s neutrality claim “intriguing,” but questioned its feasibility. He noted that in a system where Google controls node participation and potentially data flows, true neutrality is difficult to achieve. Even if Google pursues impartiality through audits and standards, Bar-Geffen warns that corporate interests could still influence decisions. Centralized control, he adds, could result in unilateral downtime or chain rollbacks.
One of GCUL’s key selling points is its potential to address the fragmentation that plagues digital finance. Yet critics argue that it may instead deepen fragmentation by creating a closed ecosystem limited to Google’s partners. Régis-Gianas sees this as an extension of Google’s longstanding strategy of building “walled gardens.”
“The real promise of blockchains is composability and interoperability. Every new walled garden pushes us further from that goal,” Régis-Gianas contends.
Bar-Geffen agrees, suggesting that a closed ecosystem around GCUL is a likely outcome given its permissioned structure and Google’s history in tech.
“This fragmentation undermines Web3’s core objective of global interoperability, where assets and data flow seamlessly across chains without gatekeepers—though there are plans to connect to the broader Web3 ecosystem for liquidity,” he adds.
