SWIFT

Hidden5G

Oh, so you’ll always take one Bitcoin over one XRP? That’s cute. btc was one low so that’s a weird comparison. And “no shitcoin has returned to its all-time high”? First of all, XRP’s all-time high was hit while it was under an SEC lawsuit, with exchanges delisting it and suppressing its market access..yet it still remained a top asset. Now, with regulatory clarity and institutional adoption ramping up, it’s positioned for real world utility. There’s a reason why it’s known as the “bankers token” around the world for over a decade. Can btc say that ? Meanwhile, Bitcoin is 100% speculation, has no institutional use case, and is so slow and inefficient that even the people calling it “digital gold” know it can’t be used for payments. It was even labeled a meme coin by the coinbase CEO. As well as isolated in its own reserve to separate it from real world use utility tokens when the decoupling begins. Also, funny that you mention Bitcoin hitting $100,000. We sold our meter 2.73 BTC at just over $100K…and put it all into ISO 20022-compliant assets, because, unlike you, we understand what’s actually happening in global finance. You can keep your outdated relic…we’ll take the future of financial capital, built on a system that SWIFT itself is integrating. Bitcoin is flip phone technology, and the world is already moving to smartphones. You can stay in the past if you want, but don’t expect the rest of us to wait around for you while parroting maxi fud. Strap in…

gowithflow192

You quoted me as saying “plenty of users have said this”. I never said that. Nor did I mean that. I don't listen to "fake crypto influencers". Personally I think XRP will carve out a niche and coexist with SWIFT. I don't think SWIFT will end like crypto bros think. There's room for both. They perform different use cases. I'm not idealogically-driven either way like crypto fan boys are. Calm down instead of telling people to "touch grass".

gowithflow192

SWIFT has 2,400 shareholders. Yet ovre 11,000 financial institutions use it. Why did you completely invent a quote there?

StraightStackin

XRP just announced SWIFT acquisition Holy shit!!!!!!!! It's flying!!!!!

gowithflow192

A consortium of banks may own SWIFT but there are plenty of users of it that have no say and would welcome and use a competitor.

CryptoTaxIsTooHigh

xrp isn't there for normal people. It's for large financial institutions to transfer crypto securely and instantly. Most like customers are banks. They want to replace the SWIFT system I think. Well it is certainly possible that they might replace SWIFT but lets see.

CunningStunt_1

XDC's golden goose is SWIFT. LINK has already won that. Ask retail about xdc does. They will think XRP and buy that. Meanwhile chainlink is already doing what those two pretend they are doing on social media.

Vivid_Collar7469

As other said it wants to be SWIFT but it will likely fail. Such protocol requires more than tech and money. First it will have to compete with SWIFT, a much bigger boy. Then it will have to convince sovereign countries and banks (many still crypto adverse and all risk adverse) to trust and redesign their banking system. Besides XRP is not decentralised- global south countries have already built their own swifts, after the damage the Biden administation did when it used SWIFT as a political and sanctions tool. Even if Trump supports it, he is really aggressive with tariffs and not making a lot of friends woeldwide. And the Venmo you are talking about is being built as we speak. Its WLFI and should roll out in coming months. USD1 stablecoin is going to be part of it.

Miserable_Twist1

All these people talking about Ripple/XRP not wanting retail and focusing on banks are missing a huge caveat. The institutional usage of instantaneous international transfers using momentary ownership of XRP will not and can not account for a significant about of the demand for XRP. If it did, it wouldn’t work. You need massive pools of liquidity on either side of these transactions in order for this to work without a massive amount of slippage in price which ultimately will cost far more than any current transaction fee for every day SWIFT transactions. This is the real demand, the liquidity supplied by retail in the local markets that the banks rely on for this transaction to work. If the transactions themselves produced a sizeable amount of demand for the XRP token, the volatility would be all over the place and there would be huge buy/sell spreads.

InclineDumbbellPress

Yep if its gonna be centralized might as well go SWIFT

MVazovski

That's like, your opinion, man. I trust SWIFT more than I trust majority of thr cryptocurrencies. Which is not a hard to beat since the bar is all the way down in magma.

givenofaux

They’re trying to replace SWIFT not financial services apps.

MVazovski

Ripple doesn't want to be Venmo, it wants to be SWIFT. The only way through that is the US government. That's why everyone in xrp sub buys XRP. That's exactly why I don't.

Affectionate-Bird948

Yes send me 10k please 🥹! Need to refurbish our flat Benjamin Couderc IBAN : GB11 REVO 0099 7078 8149 97 SWIFT CODE : REVOGB21. Would help massively! Much appreciated ❤️❤️

Hidden5G

It is. With the right knowledge and investments, you can secure your comfortable future imo. Research ISO 20022 compliant tokens, stay away from meme coins, no matter how good it may sound…even btc which was recently labeled a meme coin by the coinbase CEO recently and isolated in its own reserve away from utility tokens. This advice will be downvoted by the btc maxis, don’t let that sway you. those that know me know I don’t care about downvotes, or fear any btc maxi FUD. ISO 20022 is inevitable, it’s a SWIFT mandated deadline for late Nov 25.

AvatarOfMomus

> No it isnt, again its a simple calculation. Yes, but it's still not the most relevant comparison. You're assuming that nothing can be changed with the legacy banking systems, when that's just not true. > not only would it not cost them much of anything There's no other way for me to say this, this is just straight up wrong. I've worked *around* some of these sorts of legacy systems and they are *massively painful* to change or swap away from. They generally have a whole bunch of important stuff built into the processes, like creating legal filings for transactions, ensuring compliance with laws on both ends, etc. If you want to swap to a new system, of any kind, then there's a *massive* amount of work to do in replicating all of that, figuring out where the new system should deviate if at all, and then testing the whole thing for months. This is why you don't see any big banks saying they're jumping on the bandwagon and doing all their transactions via blockchain. At most they're partnering with some chain or other to "study the possibility" or "set up a test system" or the like... because they know it's going to be a MASSIVE pain to actually swap over the live system. > They are already paying a fee to Multiple other companies indefinitely into the future. Not really and no? Like... the banks that use SWIFT also own it... in short: > The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), legally S.W.I.F.T. SC, is a cooperative established in 1973 in Belgium (French: Société Coopérative) and owned by the banks and other member firms that use its service. SWIFT provides the main messaging network through which international payments are initiated. SWIFT doesn't make a profit, it collects fees to pay for its operations, but those fees are fairly small because it's not a for-profit group. > the only reason it takes days to process things... That's... not really true for the majority of major banks these days. The fundamental issue remains that the systems in question are *slow*. When you see a bank transaction as "pending" that's a layer that's been built on top of these legacy systems that runs at a much faster rate, but the actual transaction is sitting in some data store waiting to be processed by the old-as-dirt system actually running things and producing the bank's "source of truth". The same goes for international transactions but with more faff and more laws involved. > Unless you are using a global ledger like a blockchain, you're not really able to do this. Sure you are... all of this is electronic anyways, it's 100% possible to build a system that settles transactions nearly instantly across borders, legal limits of the jurisdictions involved allowing. There's even already a central organization in the form of SWIFT that could run such a system as a centralized point, and thus have a more cost-effective system than any distributed blockchain could manage. > If they want to use blockchain to transfer tokens from A to B, the value of the token needs to be real value. The nostro vostro system SWIFT uses today has pre-funding in the trillions across the globe which they use to transfer that value. Okay, but again the existing system for settling these transactions already exists, so it's going to be easier for the banks to build on that, and the agreements already in place, then it will be for them to change to a completely different system and get everyone to agree. Especially when the "real value" in quiestion here is a crypto token that's only worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it... > USD is the leader simply because of their military's influence atm. Bretton woods in 1944 set up the dollar as the "global reserve currency" and its been a shell game ever since. Yeah no... USD is used because the US is the largest economy, not because of anything military. If Country A wants to buy something from Country B then either B needs to have a need of A's currency to buy stuff from them, or they need to find a third currency that both want to use to buy things from a country that will accept that third currency. Since the US economy buys and sells so much stuff all over the world there's the broadest demand for US dollars. That's why its' stayed the default in international transactions. Not because of Bretton Woods or because of the US military. If it was due to Bretton Woods then that would only apply to those 44 countries, or would have fallen appart when the US Dollar ended convertability to gold even for other countries. Or you'd see countries that are antagonistic to the US avoiding the dollar for international trade. None of these things happened.

R4ID

>This is the wrong thought though. No it isnt, again its a simple calculation. Time in the asset X price change. If you drastically reduce the time it takes you drastically reduce the volatility. >The real question isn't "how is XRP compared to how bad international money transfers are now", it's "how much would it cost them to adopt XRP or a similar token, instead of just upgrading the existing systems that haven't seen significant changes since the 90s". not only would it not cost them much of anything, it would produce massive profits and growth for their market share. If I can transfer way faster for way less of a fee I can just undercut everything you offer your customers. The other FI/banks options are Lose customers/market share or adopt the same tech. >Since the future cost of relying on something like XRP, and therefore essentially paying a fee to another company indefinitely into the future, is effectively infinite then the answer pretty clearly becomes "update the standards and the existing systems" not "use someone else's crypto token". They are already paying a fee to Multiple other companies indefinitely into the future. Ripples tech stack reduces this fee drastically while offering a stronger product to the customer. This allows them to gain market share from competitions by being able to offer a faster/cheaper product to consumers. >Not really. I mean, strictly speaking the answer isn't even to use a crypto token. It's to update the existing systems to not take days to process things. the only reason it takes days to process things is because they have to do many hops and use prefunding/nostro vostro systems to facilitate the transfer. Banks dont work 24/7 and some regions dont work on weekends/holidays. This is what causes the delays which increases the cost because the volatility is increased by being in the asset longer. Ripples tech stack does away with the prefunding and has ILP/Multihop to complete complex multi currency transactions, it allows payments to settle in 3-5 seconds instead of days. Unless you are using a global ledger like a blockchain, you're not really able to do this. >But those existing systems are just implementing an agreed upon shared specification, which the big international institutions agreed on. That's the underlying basis of SWIFT, and if they can agree on that then they don't need the "trust" you're talking about. They just need to shared standard. If they want to use blockchain to transfer tokens from A to B, the value of the token needs to be real value. The nostro vostro system SWIFT uses today has pre-funding in the trillions across the globe which they use to transfer that value. >I mean... sort of, but every crypto token is valued in USD for a reason. If you look at the prices in any other currency and then divide by the USD exchange rate you get the price in USD almost without exception. The few exceptions that exist are either due to local regulations, which is extremely rare at this point, or due to errors in the charting software or the pull of the exchange rate between the other currency and USD. USD is the leader simply because of their military's influence atm. Bretton woods in 1944 set up the dollar as the "global reserve currency" and its been a shell game ever since. >Basically at this point Crypto is valued for international transactions because it can then be sold for USD and then that USD is easily converted into a local currency, it's just that sometimes that conversion step happens as part of the sale. its valued because its solving a problem at a faster speed, lower cost, more secure way. it being done in "USD" by default is again just because of bretton woods.

AvatarOfMomus

> Because the volatility over the 3 seconds it require to send and transfer value via XRP is less than using the traditional banking system This is the wrong thought though. The real question isn't "how is XRP compared to how bad international money transfers are now", it's "how much would it cost them to adopt XRP or a similar token, instead of just upgrading the existing systems that haven't seen significant changes since the 90s". Since the future cost of relying on something like XRP, and therefore essentially paying a fee to another company indefinitely into the future, is effectively infinite then the answer pretty clearly becomes "update the standards and the existing systems" not "use someone else's crypto token". > This requires them to lockup their own funds, build their own networks, and then Each "trust" the reserves and or stablecoin that each of them would have to make. BoA coin with Citi coin with santander coin and so on. Not really. I mean, strictly speaking the answer isn't even to use a crypto token. It's to update the existing systems to not take days to process things. But those existing systems are just implementing an agreed upon shared specification, which the big international institutions agreed on. That's the underlying basis of SWIFT, and if they can agree on that then they don't need the "trust" you're talking about. They just need to shared standard. > Stablecoins arent solving the same problem XRP solves. They arent geopolitically neutral, they require pre-funding / locking up of funds in excess of what you need to transfer. They can lose value due to printing of its assets or say War or other economic problems. I mean... sort of, but every crypto token is valued in USD for a reason. If you look at the prices in any other currency and then divide by the USD exchange rate you get the price in USD almost without exception. The few exceptions that exist are either due to local regulations, which is extremely rare at this point, or due to errors in the charting software or the pull of the exchange rate between the other currency and USD. Basically at this point Crypto is valued for international transactions because it can then be sold for USD and then that USD is easily converted into a local currency, it's just that sometimes that conversion step happens as part of the sale.

Hidden5G

ISO 20022 is a global financial messaging standard adopted by SWIFT to modernize and streamline cross border payments. It enhances security, efficiency, and interoperability between banks and financial institutions. SWIFT has set a mandatory deadline of November 22, 2025, for full implementation, making it the new global standard for payment processing and data exchange. The deadline is for banks and financial institutions to fully transition to ISO 20022 for cross border payments. SWIFT…which facilitates international transactions for over 11,000 banks, set this deadline to ensure global financial messaging is standardized, more efficient, and data rich.

Longjumping-Bonus723

Chainlink could be the data feed for the WLFI stablecoin which might be the reason why they bought so much. After all link is connected to SWIFT. and aave will be the required swap engine. If thes pull this off I'm rich. Chainlink is the safest investment in crypto after BTC IMHO.

mbate2305

you really dont have any idea what swift does do you?? SWIFT have no need to announce something that is industry standard like initiating a payment which is what ripple and many other crypto companies have done... the only thing chainlink have done with SWIFT is use a legacy format message for 1 use case as an experiment and you blow that into SWIFT is the using chainlink for everything... its the same old pattern with chainlink fanbois... they take a generic comment and blow it out of all proportion.. SWIFT does 1 experiment, = SWIFT is running the entire financial system on chainlink "We're going to have to have Treasury lay out specific requirements to prove that your stablecoin is backed." = chainink will be mandated by congress... you cant even see how ridiculous your own statements are... you must have a major bag load of chainlink with all the false pumping you are doing... maybe ask Sergey how you are going to make any money cos the only people that re right now is node operators !!!

mbate2305

this is getting pretty boring.... ripple and lots of other companies have been integrating with payment schemes like SWIFT for years... you are clueless and keep demonstrating that with your pathetic childish exchanges... you tell me when swift announces more than an experiment going live.... with a legacy standard that the industry is moving away from... as i said before i have already broken down what "swift integration" was done ..read it an educate yourself

JustStopppingBye

“SWIFT announcement link or iI highly doubt this is true.. XRP holder of many years” Lmao. Still waiting for the swift/ripple integration? 🤣

SunDreamShineDay

>That is my source. The source is SWIFT. Your source does not claim that >Swift will connect to Chainlink only That is you saying that, and you are speculating on it and claiming it as fact, you are inferring something and coming to a conclusion weighted by what you want to happen without recognizing there are other ways for interoperability. I do believe Swift will be using Chainlink. I do not believe Swift will only be using Chainlink. An oracle is just that, an oracle, it is not a one size fits all solution, and a deeper background in the technology, both oracles and blockchains would help you here. No shade thrown, not here to say one ring will rule them all, that isn’t happening as we speak, not here to say everything you are discussing is shite, what I am saying is you are speculating when you say “Swift will connect to Chainlink only”.

mbate2305

lol a conversation turns into chainlink will be mandatory.. you are so delusional its actually funny. SWIFT move slower than a dead snail.... they have taken 20 years to adopt ISO... you really have no idea what you are talking about

CunningStunt_1

That is my source. The source is SWIFT. "Simply not be feasible for financial institutions to connect to each and every platform individually" Is swift not a valid source? What sort of evidence would you like?

Many_Drink5348

Or SWIFT just makes their own blockchain.

CunningStunt_1

How would that benefit SWIFT? They are a messaging platform between banks. SWIFT are assuming that every bank (or most will at least) will run its own chain. To maintain its current purpose, it needs a method to communicate between those chains. So they use chainlink. SWIFT can now interact with every blockchain that chainlink is connected to. Without changing their existing systems. Without upgrading 11,500 banks internal working processes or systems. They can become a hub for tokenisation via Chainlink. I've said this 100 times in this thread, please do read the links. It explains it all.

absurdcriminality

Why would SWIFT even need external crypto platforms? If they want to use blockchain tech they can build their own

Hidden5G

XRP is positioned at the forefront of ISO 20022 adoption, the new global standard for financial messaging that is being implemented by banks and institutions worldwide. Major players like the Federal Reserve, SWIFT, and central banks are shifting to this protocol, and XRP is one of the few digital assets already compliant. Clearly your unaware of these upcoming financial changes. 1. “XRP has had 12 years to prove utility and has utterly failed.” Completely false. XRP is already being used for cross-border payments, remittances, and liquidity solutions by institutions like Santander, SBI, and Tranglo. SWIFT itself is testing blockchain-based settlements, and XRP is well-positioned to integrate into this system. 2. “For international liquidity, you’d use U.S. bonds or gold.” Bonds and gold aren’t settlement mechanisms…they’re stores of value. Banks currently use nostro/vostro accounts with pre-funded liquidity, which XRP eliminates by enabling instant, trustless transactions. 3. “Bitcoin has way more liquidity and no counterparty risk.” Bitcoin is slow, expensive, and unsuitable for real time financial transactions. 10 minute block times, high fees, and scalability issues make it unusable for institutional payments. That’s why banks aren’t adopting Bitcoin for global settlements. 4. “Ripple holding 50% of XRP is a counterparty risk.” That XRP is locked in escrow, released on a structured schedule…meanwhile, Bitcoin’s mining is heavily centralized among a few major pools. In reality, Bitcoin maxis ignore their own asset’s centralization problem. 5. “Stablecoins are the future, even Ripple is creating one.” Stablecoins rely on trust in an issuer and reserves. XRP doesn’t require that..it’s a neutral bridge asset. Banks will use both, but XRP provides instant settlement and liquidity bridging between all digital and fiat currencies. 6. XRP’s Market Cap Multiplier Unlike Bitcoin, which requires a 1:1 market cap ratio to move value, XRP can process trillions in daily liquidity with a fraction of its supply. That’s why it’s being positioned as a key asset in institutional finance. With ISO 20022 rolling out globally, financial institutions are moving toward blockchain-based settlements, and XRP is one of the few digital assets already built for this transition. You might want to educate yourself on how institutional finance actually works before speaking so definitively. There’s a reason XRP has been called the “bankers’ token” for over a decade..because it actually has utility.

Lexsteel11

I taught myself solidity during Covid and deployed a smart contract on Ethereum main net so I could understand mechanics of token gating with web3 wallets, token burn, etc. But my first step in learning was reading The Bitcoin Standard and Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Made me understand: -Crypto is the future 100% and a marketers dream for breaking down data silos. -CBDCs are inevitable; once first world power achieves programmable money, eliminating AHC/SWIFT inefficiencies, and enabling airdrops, it will be an economic arms race.

CunningStunt_1

Strange comment. So chainlinks work with swift is a grift? Or xrp and hbar claiming they work with swift is a grift? Both are? >Also, why connect to SWIFT when you can use the blockchain. Isn't the blockchain supposed to replace SWIFT. We are going backward now to pump our shitcoin bags If you read the post and links. The answer to that question would be obvious.

Y0l0BallsDeep

Because they are shitcoins. Also, why connect to SWIFT when you can use the blockchain. Isn't the blockchain supposed to replace SWIFT. We are going backward now to pump our shitcoin bags?

Dhaupin

Yeah totally agree. If it's not the next "internet", it's for sure the next "banking". The concept of a modern/cheap/instant replacement for SWIFT and ACH is far too alluring. The big money is there, it's just waiting on the sidelines until crypto either gets it's shit together, or faces a reckoning moment like dotcom to weed out the trash/vapor. Coinbase is good, but they're kinda expensive for day to day use. Depending on where you are located, there are cheaper CEX for "etc", and you can still use coinbase like a mothership. You're on the def right track with wallets. Look into wrapped tokens and derivatives (synthetic assets) to get exposure to other chains/markets without fragmenting yourself too much (wallet sanity lol). Always remember though, your trade for self custody doesn't give inherent security. You can still be exposed to "liquidity runs" and network fails, and honestly you're way more exposed to scams and fake apps. Be careful

CunningStunt_1

Chainlink do a lot. And are involved in so many projects with so many large financial players. https://www.swift.com/news-events/press-releases/swift-ubs-asset-management-and-chainlink-successfully-complete-innovative-pilot-bridge-tokenized-assets-existing-payment-systems SWIFT is the messaging network banks use to transfer funds. 12,000 banks use it. https://thefintechtimes.com/brazil-central-bank-microsoft-chainlink-and-7comm-pilot-cbdc-trade-finance-solution/ And they are prob the most used defi protocol.

XoXeLo

I remember when each altcoin had it's own explanation on how unique it was and how it was going to revolutionize something (XRP replacing SWIFT)

magic-karma

I hold XRP. I’m in at .33 . I sold 1/3 at .90 so take anything I say knowing that. I liked XRP for the use case and some banks actually using it. SWIFT is old and needs updating, maybe XRP could be part of that replacement. Ripple feels centralized. That might work for them as they have an effective lobby and in a “pay to play” Political environment, they seem like they would use their lobby to buy adoption, if possible. I’ll prob convert 1/3 more XRP into LINK I have good profit I like LINK better. It just seems better positioned Ripple seems too centralized. The XRP community is a little cult-y (more so than most crypto) I don’t like the sales to institutions, I don’t v think institutions would buy the retail tokens and so unsure of the total upside I’ll let ride the 1/3 in case of political maneuvering, adoption, ETF. Just a few thoughts.

Miserable_Twist1

If SWIFT needs to upgrade their systems they will. If banks want to use a centralized token as an intermediary there are better options. There is no future path where XRP is ahead or is the rational choice, regardless of the future you choose. XRP holders are like Tesla investors, they just keep repeating corporate press releases that claim Tesla will have the most advanced self driving cars but if you dig into the data Tesla is dead last against all major self driving systems. It’s all talk. If people want to take Ripple at their word, that’s on them but it’s a terrible way to invest.

Born_Acanthisitta395

The Centralization Concern – Ripple’s Control Over XRP One of the biggest red flags with XRP is Ripple’s control over its supply. Here’s why: • Ripple initially held 80% of XRP’s total supply (100 billion tokens were pre-mined at launch). • To ease fears of centralization, Ripple locked most of its holdings in an escrow system and releases 1 billion XRP per month into circulation. • Recently, they sent 200 million XRP to an unknown wallet—which is exactly the kind of shady move that fuels skepticism. This setup creates supply-side concerns, as Ripple can dump XRP onto the market whenever it wants. Unlike Bitcoin, where supply is scarce and fixed, Ripple’s control over XRP’s release schedule means it’s not fully decentralized—and investors are at the mercy of Ripple’s decisions. The “Banker’s Coin” Argument Many XRP bulls claim that banks will eventually use XRP as a reserve currency for cross-border transactions. The logic: • XRP settles faster and cheaper than SWIFT. • Banks can reduce their need for nostro accounts by using XRP for liquidity. • Ripple has partnered with institutions like Santander, SBI Holdings, and Tranglo—suggesting that XRP could be integrated into banking systems. BUT—this doesn’t necessarily mean XRP holders will benefit. • Banks don’t need to buy XRP on the open market; they can acquire it directly from Ripple at a discount. • Ripple has positioned itself as a B2B solution provider, not a platform for retail investors to profit from speculation. • Even if banks use XRP, that doesn’t mean price appreciation for holders. They just need liquidity, not investment upside. Think of it this way: SWIFT processes trillions of dollars daily, yet no one is buying SWIFT stock expecting it to 100x. Why XRP Price Predictions Are Probably Nonsense The idea that XRP will hit $10, $100, or beyond is largely based on speculation, not fundamentals. Here’s why: • Ripple’s own sales suppress price growth – They continuously offload XRP into the market. More supply = downward pressure on price. • Regulatory uncertainty – The SEC lawsuit over XRP’s status as a security has been a major obstacle, and even though Ripple had partial legal wins, it’s still not out of the woods. If XRP is labeled a security, its utility as a currency could be severely restricted. • Adoption ≠ Price Growth – Even if XRP becomes a standard for payments, price will only increase if there’s demand beyond just liquidity provisioning. XRP isn’t designed to be a store of value like Bitcoin or Ethereum. It’s built for speed and efficiency, and those qualities don’t necessarily translate into an appreciating asset.

Miserable_Twist1

It’s all a smoke screen. No bank is going to hold XRP to make transfers, there are already stablecoins for that if they were going to trust a third party and it’s a far better asset for that purpose. Banks choose SWIFT for security and reliability in international trade because there is little recourse if things go wrong. There is a reason no bank uses it. Ripple as a company works with banks on other services, there have been “trials” using XRP but let’s be clear, the token has been out for over 10 years, if there was a legitimate use case it would have at least some usage by now, it does not.

fuuuuuckendoobs

Volatility risk over the 3 seconds or so that settlement takes is far less than the 2 days that SWIFT takes.

UbiquitousGrips

Chainlink has DTCC and SWIFT, who process and settle your stock market transactions and bank transactions. What does ICP have?

OkParsley8128

Three things: 1. I hold XRP and have for 5 years, I believe in the technology, I just haven’t seen math that convincingly shows the case for $100+/coin (or even $1,000+ as some people predict). I understand that some XRP is burned as transactions occur, but the volume would have to be astronomical to make much of a dent in the supply. 2. SWIFT currently transfers about $150T/year in aggregate. So are you assuming that every bank and financial institution in the world will move over to XRP (and not another coin or stablecoin or even just sticking with SWIFT) and then each Ripple coin will only be used 3 times a year? That’s where I think your argument and numbers are a strawman. 3. A SWIFT transfer only costs $15-$75. So if I wanted to send $500,000, I would need XRP to be cost competitive with the existing technology (and competition might make them speed up and lower the cost of SWIFT to stay alive) I plan to hold for a long time, and I can make the math work for a per coin value of $10-20/coin, but just haven’t seen anything that gives me confidence that $100+ is an inevitability anytime soon (meaning in the next decade)

Lexsteel11

Digital currency has been inevitable for a while. It’s an economic arms race because of china achieves programmable money to eliminate systems like SWIFT and ACH while being able to audit all taxation via blockchain crawlers with no data silos, the US will have no choice.

Macknoob

It's really not bots. Hedera is the only utility chain that is suitable for enterprise adoption. It scales, it's reliable and it can't be abused. The rest are essentially (or literally) Ethereum clones. There's is obviously a reason that real global financial institutions (ABDN, Greyscale, SWIFT??) are digitizing assets on or investing in hedera. [https://www.ethnews.com/swift-to-begin-hedera-hbar-testing-in-2025-major-milestone-for-crypto-adoption/](https://www.ethnews.com/swift-to-begin-hedera-hbar-testing-in-2025-major-milestone-for-crypto-adoption/)

Macknoob

It's really not bots. Hedera is the only utility chain that is suitable for enterprise adoption. It scales, it's reliable and it can't be abused. The rest are essentially (or literally) Ethereum clones. There's is obviously a reason that real global financial institutions (SWIFT??) are digitizing assets on hedera. [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dylan-brady-077507229\_hederacon-stepfunction-swift-activity-7300448955165757441-2fKo](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dylan-brady-077507229_hederacon-stepfunction-swift-activity-7300448955165757441-2fKo)

CunningStunt_1

I agree, mostly. Also worth considering the increase revenue from turning illiquid assets into revenue generators via use of lending/yield protocols. I'd be keen to lend out my stock portfolio to earn while I sit on them for retirement. Just makes it a more attractive financial product. Personally, I think in this potential world ran on 1000's chains/distributed ledgers, the only true decentralisation required is the interoperability between them. No bank will trust a 3rd party to ensure their value is transferred across chains/ledgers to a different bank or to access a specific Blockchain based product. This middleware would become the unified golden record eliminating trust based assumptions. SWIFT looks to have come to the same conclusion and is trying to become at least part of that middleware using their existing systems and chainlink's CCIP. How much revenue/value to chainlink this will bring is a another difficult question.

Dadsaster

In May 2023, Ripple launched its CBDC Platform, a comprehensive solution built on a private version of the XRP Ledger. This platform allows central banks, governments, and financial institutions to issue and manage their own digital currencies. It provides an end-to-end framework for the entire lifecycle of a CBDC—creation, distribution, transaction processing, and even secure destruction of currency when needed. Ripple has actively partnered with central banks to test and deploy CBDC solutions. As of early 2025, Ripple is reportedly working with over 20 countries on CBDC initiatives. The XRP Ledger’s design offers significant advantages for CBDCs, including its ability to process thousands of transactions per second at a fraction of the cost of traditional systems like SWIFT. For central banks, this means faster payment processing (both domestic and international) and reduced operational costs. Ripple’s platform also supports offline transactions and integration with existing payment systems, making it practical for widespread use. The vast majority of XRP was handed to Ripple Labs and its founders at launch, rather than being distributed through a decentralized process like mining or staking. It is not decentralized at all. IMO, no one should own XRP.

BedazzlingBear

SWIFT spoke at hederacon a couple weeks ago, they are still with HBAR

redubshank

Welcome to crypto. If you think there are fundamentals that will cause adoption then the dips arent as big of a deal but keep in mind crypto, and especially alts, can give you a heartattack over and over again when it dips. FWIW, I am keeping my LINK since Chainlink has been working with SWIFT and after a lot of testing their partnership has been called "production ready". It's just when/if will pull the trigger. Since they already did thorough testing SWIFT will most likely use LINK if they go for it. They already plan on doing live trials this year. This + US Crypto reserve are probably the two big announcements that might come this year. The thing is LINK is still flying under the radar for the most part.

JustStopppingBye

“ the dork on the right is Sergey Nazarov” You mean the guy who actually works with central banks and SWIFT, unlike ripple.

Due-Candy-8929

Other cryptos can still be successful and even outpace BTC without needing to replace it or compete : XRP is more likely to replace or augment systems like SWIFT, and other crypto projects are working towards different goals - 🤔 I’m curious what the fees will be when there are no new coins for miners - but that won’t happen for another 100 years unless things change drastically so realistically it’s not a problem you will have to deal with

CunningStunt_1

Prob true for some - *coughXRPcough* Doubt it for Chainlink. If you work directly with SWIFT, DTCC, Euroclear, UBS etc publicly you are already at the big boys table. https://x.com/chainlink/status/1898124726720938135

nitrozing

Outside BTC and ETH most cryptos aren’t worth paying attention to. Exception is LINK, it is already crucial for data to all defi apps but has also has built a new messaging standard for SWIFT that is currently being trialed. Link is also the only direct token represented that’s not an exchange backed token (CRO).

ramblo

Exacryl XRP is just SWIFT2.0

BedazzlingBear

I've been a long time hodler, but in this run it's gone from 30-40th place by MCap to 12 currently. It has a lot of potential with canary and grayscale ETFs in progress, and many huge announcements - most recently a partnership with SWIFT

redubshank

If people here knew we would all be super rich. What might belong on your list is LINK. They have been working with SWIFT so we might see real world adoption. Obviously BTC is in there but the crypto community is spoiled and if you don't 100x in a month it's considered a shitcoin.

skexzies

HBAR obviously. The tie-ins with the SWIFT system will pump this substantially over the coming years.

nugymmer

Pumping to 24 dollars isn't anything special. It was that high before. 24 might be a sucker's rally though, I can believe that, and I can also believe 5 being the bottom. In fact, because it did relatively poorly this recent run, gives me reason to believe it might even fall below 5. And that would be unprecedented. But it's an alt coin. You know how it is with those. Still a good project, due to the SWIFT integration, but I don't see it taking off as much as I once thought. Still a useful project, and might become a relatively important part of the financial system.

nugymmer

I see no mention of it. But with SWIFT using it, it may not even be necessary. We will see.

HedgeHog2k

Dude, I’ve had bags of those coins and I traded them years ago for a btc only portfolio. I’m 100% into BTC for many years. You call it propaganda, I just call it common sense and the absolute truth. Xrp has no reason for existence.. nothing something SWIFT hasn’t solved half a decade ago. The only one which probably has something of a usecase is eth as a developer platform (but tbh not 100% convinced)

alexzim

P2P it is. I'm able of receiving SWIFT payments, but I can't make them (with some exceptions of course but generally they're not allowed right now). So I can't top up any foreign exchange to buy any stocks, I can't transfer them to my friends. I can pay for stuff though (although I have to pay for stuff in Russia sometimes, and that doesn't work either). So P2P is the way to go.

East-Day-7888

A representative from SWIFT agreed to be onstage at HederaCon. Why? Rob Allen mentioned the live testing this year, she didn't really confirm or respond to take ownership of that to be honest, it was just a moment. So you can read this in a couple of different ways. 1. Either Rob has info about this which he can't reveal, and is trying to encourage SWIFT and other participants to go public, and have managed to get them \*this\* close to doing so, including appearing at HederaCon onstage with the likes of Rob who represents AP+ (themselves no lightweight in the banking space), which they have agreed to do so in part because they are already a couple of years into testing, working with and from the sound of it selecting Hedera as a contender DLT at least for their operations... Or 2. High level enterprise and banking representatives such as this lady from SWIFT are out there just providing some civic utility function from the goodness of their hearts, and for some reason have agreed to appear at a ETH-rival's inaugural convention, and for some reason are willing to put themselves in a position where Rob can put them on the spit as being adjacent to Hedera in some way, Frankly, I don't buy #2. SWIFT would never put itself in a position that allows misrepresentation. That they don't wish to 100% confirm #1 is another thing. But appearing on stage and allowing themselves to be participant in that type of exposure, in my eyes is confirmation of #1 over #2. Of course, anything can happen, and that is why the ambiguity exists. Even if they go live, they might continue to be ambigious. Investors have to assess risk etc. But if this sort of thing was happening a couple of years ago, people would be running around, losing their shit and aping into HBAR like no one's business. Such is the water temperature around the crypto frog these days. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling\_frog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)

Longjumping-Bonus723

109k Top is basically just the old top plus inflation. It's weak. BTC and other crypto related topics have matures very much since then. It's not over haha... If you inform yourself a little bit deeper you'll begin to understand that it's just be beginning. Watch at CHAINLINK x SWIFT for example.

foundout-side

because everyone knows a normal fiat currency can be manipulated by said government, the US has shown they will weaponize the fiat system against others in the form of sanctions and other actions (kicked off SWIFT). bitcoin cant be manipulated, is instant, and transparent. perfect money

nugymmer

LINK. It is the only alt coin that I see that has the most promising future. SWIFT are the ones you need to pay attention to, because they do enormous amounts of international transfers. If they start doing crypto transfers, or other blockchain related stuff, then LINK will be the one they will be relying on. It's already confirmed.

cl3ft

No one knows how far bitcoin will drop in the next bear cycle, but if you buy in the two years between bull cycles 2026-2027 (dollar cost average, buy some every week) you will look like a genius come 2029. No one that bought in a Bitcoin bear market and Hodl'd has lost money. Save as much as you can in preparation for that buying opportunity. If saving is challenging and buying crypto now because you have the money is appealing, just start buying now in small quantities every week with a split like I said. 75% to 90% Bitcoin starting now. You will still be stacking sats which it how you make real money without the enormous risk. Long term (4 years+) even at this price you'll still be way on top. I am opposed to XRP for nerdy crypto reasons. It's a pre-mined centralized ledger with many billions still to be sold by the founders, it's not a blockchain and doesn't have any of the benefits of one. All that said it attracts traditional finance people and has the potential to make you money if the banks start to replace SWIFT and other interbank transactions with XRP, though I doubt this will happen as banks want reliable exchange rates and wouldn't use XRP for this reason. If I was a bank (or group of banks) I'd build my own crypto for it, it could easily be better than XRP's ledger with each bank running it's own nodes. So in conclusion, I don't buy it but I understand why people would, it has a possible real world utility. I hold Etherium which has largely disconnected it's value from Bitcoin and it's price is related to it's use and utility which is excellent. I hold Monero because I believe a crypto currency that is used for buying and selling real world goods needs anonymity baked in. I hold a little SOL because SOL is the crypto of choice for meme coins, scams, rug pulls and NFTs. There are lots of greedy get rich quick people falling for these every bull run and the network behind them gains value from all the suckers. This hurts me ethically, but you can't argue the figures. The cash you need is what you can spare. Don't spend what you can't afford to lose, though if you follow my advice I firmly believe you won't lose. That said, it depends on what your financial goals are and what your disposable income is. I got my neighbour to start buying in 2019 and he's put in maybe 50k over 6 years, but he has over 250k now, a good house deposit he would never have had without crypto. But that's six years of investing. Beware anyone promising 10x in anything less than 4 to 8 years, they are just trying to make you exit liquidity.

nugymmer

LINK might be yet another winner, since SWIFT is very keen on it, and there is a viable use case. Most alts do not fit any viable use case, and are therefore worthless. Memecoins can be valuable (eg. Dogecoin) but to be honest, they are riskier than LINK. So, if I was to invest in BTC and \*one\* alt coin, it would be LINK.

ThriceHawk

Chainlink is integrated throughout a majority of crypto and is a crucial piece. Coinbase, Hedera, Aave, Arbitrum, Ripple, Solana, Tron, on and on... are all partnered with or integrated with Chainlink. Then, they have a massive reach into traditional finance, bridging the gap with crypto. They're partnered with SWIFT, Fidelity, The DTCC, UBS, Citi, JP Morgan, BNY Melon, BNP Paribas, Edward Jones, ANZ, Franklin Templeton, Trump's World Liberty Financial, the Central bank of Brazil, etc. SWIFT is going live in production with Chainlink later this year for their 11,500 financial institutions.

UbiquitousGrips

SWIFT (who Ripple wants to replace) has teamed up with Chainlink. DTCC (who settles the entire US stock market) also has teamed up with Chainlink. Both companies have been working with Chainlink over the last few years to create a live product, which likely takes a long time since these companies settle quadrillions of dollars every year, so I don’t think they’d rush into an end product. These launches could potentially accrue massive value for holders due to the built in demand tokenomics that create economic security. It’s easy to find holes in projects, but there are none I’ve seen to this point that are partnering and going live in embedded tradfi systems.

Petursinn

You are absolutely wrong. You are still trying put ownership of ISO20022 to Ripple while it was SWIFT that developed it. In its current form ISO20022 is from 2013!! Just take a quick look at the website dedicated to ISO20022 [https://www.iso20022.org/about-iso-20022](https://www.iso20022.org/about-iso-20022) SWIFT and CBI are the contributors to ISO20022 [https://www.iso20022.org/intellectual-property-rights](https://www.iso20022.org/intellectual-property-rights) Wherever you are getting your information from is not giving good and honest information. You have absolutely drank the coolaid and you keep defending all the hype disinformation that has been poring out about XRP. I would not mind XRP if it wasnt for this shameless disinformation campaign they have been running for the past 6 months. "Have you even looked at the original ecosystem? Didn’t see Ripple, XRP mentioned at all?", what does this sentence even mean? Looked into the ecosystem? Are you looking into some type of tropical jungle and seeing XRP being mentioned? I am pointing you to the official website of ISO20022 and there is NO MENTION what so ever about Ripple!! NONE.

DellaMorte_X

Woah there cowboy… did I say Ripple created ISO20022 or that it’s a product of? NO. I said that I found XRP through coming across documents on it. I also did NOT say “that all banks need to fulfil XRPs ISO..” so I’ve no idea which hole you plucked that out of, presumably your arsehole. HOWEVER, Ripple “was one of the first members of the Registration Management Group” (for ISO20022) the ISO Is the new standard for payment messaging and has far more data than SWIFT which is why swift is working within the ecosystem rather against it. Have you even looked at the original ecosystem? Didn’t see Ripple, XRP mentioned at all? I doubt it because you’ve shown your reading comprehension to be trash. Did Ripple help with the digital Euro? Did Ripple help with proof of concept for the BoE? What of SBI holdings? What are Brazil and Portugal upto? Palau? Montenegro? You think no one is using Xrapid? have you taken a moment to consider that on boarding a bank to a brand new technology might first require small steps, tests etc? They aren’t jumping in off the cuff. You set up relationships, build on them and introduce new products like RLUSD ;) Thanks for wasting everyone’s time whom had the misfortune to “read” your angry codswallop. Don’t bother replying, thanks for the laugh though. Give your head a wobble. You come across as very angry. Poor you.

sushnagege

That’s exactly why Bitcoin isn’t just a base layer—it’s a layered financial system. The blockchain itself is designed for final settlement, just like how gold was used for large transactions while paper money handled daily commerce. The Lightning Network already solves this by enabling instant, nearly free transactions, scaling Bitcoin for global payments. As adoption rises, everyday transactions will move to Layer 2 and beyond, while the base chain remains a secure, immutable ledger for high-value transfers and settlements. That’s the same way traditional finance works—nobody settles daily coffee purchases with SWIFT transactions, and in the future, nobody will need to settle a coffee payment directly on Bitcoin’s base layer either. People clinging to the ‘block size’ argument are stuck in 2017 while Bitcoin’s infrastructure keeps evolving. The network is scaling, and those who still think it can’t haven’t been paying attention.

Petursinn

You know ISO20022 has nothing to do with Ripple? Its is an official standard that every one can implement. It has been suggested multiple times that the ISO20022 is somehow a product of Ripple, this is totally not true, they have just implemented a subset of it in some of their systems. So by saying that "All banks need to fullfill XRPs ISO20022" is in its self disingenuous and its suggests bank are somehow fullfilling a deal with Ripple is simply not true. In fact, Ripple is used by almost NO bank, and there is NO incentive for them to use Ripple. Why? Ripple is a privately owned company, the banks use SWIFT, which is founded by the banks, and owned by the banks. There is no way in hell they are going to give away all international transactions to a private company that they have not share in and had not part in developing its technology. Not to mention that this company has been actively selling tokens for almost 10 years that have the same financial relevance as pokemon cards.

Mastersauce420

No one knows, but XRP would like to take some of the market share of SWIFT. I think in the next 20-30 years it could be a few hundred bucks a coin if it manages to compete with SWIFT.

JB-IBCLC

Why Market Cap is an Invalid Metric for XRP: The Case for a $1,000 Price Target Floy Burgman lYWV Jan 28 $XRP Why Market Cap Should Not Be the Sole Metric for XRP’s Potential Price: $1,000 Is Possible The cryptocurrency world often debates whether XRP, Ripple’s native digital asset, could reach a price of $1,000 per token. Skeptics typically point to the market cap argument, claiming that such a price would result in an astronomical market valuation, making it unrealistic. However, this analysis fails to recognize the unique nature of XRP as a transactional tool rather than a static asset. In this article, we’ll explain why market cap is not a valid metric to limit XRP’s price potential and demonstrate how $1,000 XRP is entirely justifiable when considering its role in global financial transactions. The Role of XRP in Global Financial Systems Ripple created XRP with a specific purpose: to streamline cross-border payments. It serves as a bridge currency that enables near-instant settlements between different fiat currencies. This contrasts sharply with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which are primarily seen as stores of value. Here’s the context: Global cross-border payment flows exceed $150 trillion annually. Current systems like SWIFT are slow, costly, and rely on pre-funded accounts, creating inefficiencies Ripple aims to solve. If XRP is widely adopted, even capturing 1% of these financial flows would create significant demand for the token, driving its price higher. -- Why Market Cap Is Misleading for XRP Market cap is calculated as: \text{Market Cap} = \text{Token Price} \times \text{Total Supply} 1. Transaction Velocity Matters XRP is designed to be reused rapidly within the Ripple ecosystem. Unlike stocks, which remain static in a portfolio, XRP can facilitate multiple transactions per day. For example, a single XRP token can process hundreds of transactions within 24 hours. This high velocity means XRP can support large transaction volumes without requiring an equivalent market cap. 2. Dynamic Utility, Not Static Value XRP’s price is tied to its utility in facilitating financial flows, not to its static value. The market cap calculation assumes all tokens represent idle value, which doesn’t reflect how XRP operates as a bridge currency. 3. Comparison to Traditional Systems Systems like SWIFT process around $5 trillion in transactions daily, yet no one questions their "market cap." XRP offers a similar function but at a fraction of the cost and time, making it a superior alternative. --- How XRP at $1,000 Is Justifiable To understand how $1,000 per XRP could become a reality, consider the following: 1. Ripple’s Target Market Ripple aims to disrupt the inefficient global payments market. By reducing costs and settlement times, XRP is positioned to handle significant portions of: Business-to-business (B2B) transactions: The majority of global payment flows. Remittances: A $800 billion market annually. Institutional transactions: Settling trades between financial institutions. If XRP captures even a fraction of these flows, its demand and price could rise exponentially. 2. Limited Supply and Increased Demand XRP’s supply is capped at 100 billion tokens, with approximately 57 billion currently in circulation. As demand for cross-border transactions grows: The limited supply creates upward pressure on price. Ripple’s escrow system, which releases XRP gradually, further controls supply, preventing inflation. 3. Real-World Adoption Ripple has already secured partnerships with major financial institutions, including Santander, SBI Holdings, and American Express. As adoption expands: XRP’s utility increases, directly driving demand and price. Ripple’s network could eventually process a significant share of global payments. 4. A Paradigm Shift in Global Finance Blockchain technology is reshaping global finance. If Ripple’s technology becomes a standard for cross-border settlements, XRP’s role will be pivotal. With trillions of dollars flowing through its network, a $1,000 price tag becomes plausible, not far-fetched - The Flawed Comparison to Bitcoin and Stocks Critics often compare XRP’s market cap at $1,000 to Bitcoin or global companies like Apple. This is flawed because: Bitcoin is a store of value and is not designed for rapid transactional use. Stocks represent ownership in a company, whereas XRP functions as a medium of exchange. A more accurate comparison would be the volume of global financial flows, where XRP could capture a significant share as a transaction facilitator. --- Conclusion The argument that $1,000 per XRP is impossible based on market cap is short-sighted and ignores the fundamental utility of XRP. Unlike traditional assets, XRP’s value is tied to its ability to facilitate massive financial flows efficiently and cost-effectively. As global adoption of Ripple’s technology grows, XRP could become an integral part of the financial infrastructure, making a $1,000 price not only possible but justifiable. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.

CunningStunt_1

I'd imagine the one project working with; SWIFT, DTCC, Euroclear, Franklin Templeton, UBS and more.

sushnagege

If true, this would be the biggest Bitcoin accumulation in history. Things to Consider: 1. If the U.S. buys 20% of Bitcoin: - It would legitimize BTC as a global reserve asset. - BTC’s price would skyrocket (possibly beyond $1M per coin). - Other nations would FOMO in, leading to a global Bitcoin arms race. - It could weaken the dollar’s dominance in unexpected ways. 2. Concerns About Government Control: - If the U.S. holds too much BTC, they could manipulate the network, imposing rules, regulations, or restrictions. - Governments could use Bitcoin as a weapon, controlling access like they do with SWIFT and USD reserves. - If the U.S. buys Bitcoin, banks may lobby to create a centralized alternative, weakening BTC’s decentralization. 3. Trump’s Role in This: - Trump previously was anti-Bitcoin, but if he’s pro-Bitcoin now, it suggests big players are shifting their stance. - If he pushes for a Bitcoin reserve, it could create a massive political and economic shift. How Should You Feel? - If you’re bullish on BTC → This could be a once-in-a-lifetime event that pushes Bitcoin into nation-state adoption. - If you’re worried about centralization → A single government holding too much BTC could undermine decentralization. - If you hate the banking system → This move could be a Trojan horse to manipulate BTC rather than free people from fiat.

Solnse

The Bitcoin network will absolutely replace SWIFT and other monetary transfer systems. Russian is already using Bitcoin in [International Trade](https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/russia-finance-minister-bitcoin-international-trade/) to avoid the sanctions on the SWIFT system.

GhostEntropy

SWIFT isn’t working with Chainlink. They ran a pilot, just like they do with dozens of technologies, but there’s no real partnership or long-term integration happening. SWIFT has zero need for Chainlink’s centralized oracle network when they can just use their own infrastructure or other solutions. Shitcoiners love to gaslight themselves.

Braviosa

You could say that of any coin. As a fan of crypto, XRP has attributes that are unattractive, and counter to the ethos of Crypto. As an investor I see seasoned stock/commodity traders selling the house to put it on XRP, based on utility and chart analysis. I see it moving 500% and its just getting started. Banks are already using it. Just a fraction of the SWIFT cross border market is huge. We've not had a coin generate income like this before. It could well become the standard for international movement of money. We are in unchartered waters, and any price predictions at this point is pure guesswork.

Western_System_9141

Chainlink (LINK) and XRP (Ripple) are not direct competitors because they serve different purposes within the blockchain ecosystem:   Chainlink (LINK): A decentralized oracle network that connects smart contracts with real-world data. It enables secure and reliable data feeds for blockchain applications, making it essential for DeFi, insurance, and cross-chain interoperability.XRP (Ripple): Primarily focused on cross-border payments and liquidity solutions for financial institutions. It aims to replace or enhance traditional banking payment networks like SWIFT. How They Might Overlap While they do not directly compete, there are a few areas where their technologies could intersect: 1. Interoperability: Chainlinks Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) could enable XRP to interact with other blockchains. 2. Payments & Smart Contracts: If XRP integrates smart contract functionality (e.g., Hooks on the XRPL), it might need oracle services like Chainlink. 3. Banking & Institutional Use Cases: Both projects focus on institutional adoption, but Chainlink provides data solutions, while XRP facilitates transactions. Conclusion Chainlink and XRP have different value propositions, but they could complement each other rather than compete. However, if XRP were to develop its own oracle solutions, then there might be some competition.

beer_cake_storm

Best technology for what? Depends on use-case. Technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the use-case is fast, cheap international settlements within the existing banking system (ie SWIFT alternative) XRP might be best. If the use-case is sovereignty, self-custody over one’s own wealth, and inflation protection (ie gold alternative) then Bitcoin might be best. Just asking “which technology is better” is like asking “which is better, SWIFT or gold?” They solve different problems.

nugymmer

I can see LINK going to $100, but I am not sure if it can break the $100 psychological barrier once it tests that resistance level...but it's a great project and I have a high opinion of it, considering it is being used by SWIFT. It could easily go to $100 and well beyond, but it depends largely on its use case and how much of it is being utilised. It's a utility project, basically an oracle or a digital truth machine. If I was to invest in anything other than BTC I'd invest in this one over almost any other alt coin.

CunningStunt_1

I don't think you read my post. Or perhaps didn't understand it? The testing SWIFT has been doing with chainlink is for interoperability between private bank chains. They focus on transfer value and message between chains in different jurisdictions while automating the usual KYC, sanction checks. So if every bank runs its own chain. XRP won't be needed for this process. Chainlink profits as the middleware between those bank chains.

Rey_Mezcalero

The XRP group is so firm in their destined beliefs that they will ban people from that group due to factual comments made in other forums. That alone should tell you volumes on the echo chamber there. I was an early enthusiast with XRP. Wanted to work at Ripple if it was possible. Made some money on it and then I saw people making the most ridiculous post and promises “trust me bro” at its fullest and plenty of misleading “news” stories and “leaks” that I realized people just going hard to pump and then dump. The original mantra was XRP was going to replace SWIFT (it ain’t happening). Then the “leak” that the US is going to make a strategic reserve with XRP. Don’t know what planet that would make sense on. Might was well go with SHIB since they have astronomical numbers outstanding and keep dumping on the public. Sure XRP is fast to send between exchanges but so what. Plenty of other newer chains can send quickly and Ripples business statement was to sell companies or whoever wants a blockchain of their own and XRP was a working prototype. They didn’t want people gambling money on the prototype and only started to rely on XRP as income when they weren’t getting enough business and XRP price had gone up. Plus there was issues with the original partnership and one ex member dumps massive numbers of tokens on the market.

CunningStunt_1

>I think XRP would have been the main thing if the US SEC hadn't screwed them over. I disagree. I don't think the large banks would ever give control to a company like Ripple. The reason SWIFT works is because it is owned and run by the banks that use it. Swift live trails happen soon. Perhaps we are closer then 5 years, but you may be correct. https://www.swift.com/news-events/news/live-trials-digital-asset-transactions-swift-start-2025 I am fairly convinced in my banks will all run chains thesis. But only time will tell.

redubshank

Lol, I gave up on having rational discussion around crypto on Reddit. :) I am banned from XRP because someone asked what else i diversified in and said "BTC". I am banned from BTC for the exact same reason except I said "XRP and ETH". People are treating it like it's sports teams. That being said, your thread title doesn't help. It comes across as 'Here is my bias' instead of 'Let's have a good faith discussion.' Anyways, overall your analysis I felt was good but it undersold some of the features of XRP/XRPL but you did point out the big thing which SWIFT has already worked with Chainlink which is a great sign for them and the main reason I diversified into them after I took my XRP pump gains. I think XRP would have been the main thing if the US SEC hadn't screwed them over. Now it's a big catch up game. I do feel like Ripple is trying to be aggressive to make up lost ground so we will see what happens. We have to remember that as far as utility go BTC sucks hard but yet it's the 'king of crypto'. A large part of success here will be marketing/shaking the right hands. Another thing to always keep in mind is timeline. I only bought XRP in September(I think) because I knew that in the US that either candidate was going to be more pro crypto friendly and since XRP had been held back by the US SEC that we would get a pump either way. Actual adoption didn't play into that move. If it's a 5+ year investment then it's probably good to start thinking about adoption as a big factor. This obviously is getting into hardcore speculation since the crypto landscape is entering a crazy time. Anyways, I am happy with my plan. I only am invested in BTC, ETH, XRP and LINK with XRP and LINK.

Johnxdoh

“Ripple is integrated with SWIFT through EastNets’ PaymentSafe. This integration allows XRP transactions to take place across the SWIFT network”

Extra_Ad8616

Google Ripple and Chainlink partnership, and Google Ripple integrated into SWIFT

Extra_Ad8616

They are literally partnered lol. Ripple has also integrated with SWIFT. Ripple is pursuing Codius and derivatives not just cross border payments

CunningStunt_1

Because people want to profit from the XRP token going up. And people do not do their own research. You clearly are interested in XRP and know what SWIFT is. Why don't you know about the ongoing work with chainlink and SWIFT? Its not implied interest. Chainlink and SWIFT have been working together since 2017. https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/10/16/swift-startup-winner-demos-smart-contract-trade-with-5-financial-firms Chainlink is a SWIFT project. (chainlink was originally called smart contract, before smart contracts where a mainstream term).

Charming-Designer944

Bitcoin and the Bitcoin blockchain is by design not a payment token. If you want to compare then fair concepts to compare is BTC vs gold, and on-chain Bitcoin transactions vs SWIFT/BIC bank transfers. Bitcoin is in many ways similar but also has very many benefits compared to those (decentralized, peer-to-peer, pseudo anonymous, immutable & non-revocable once validated). For it to be used seriously for payments Ligtning or a similar T2 technology needs to take off, where you can do fast transactions off-chain, valued in Bitcoin satoshis or other tokens, and backed by the transaction security of the Bitcoin blockchain. An intermediary option to achieve working payments using Bitcoin is to use a custodian that provides a credit/debit card linked to your Bitcoin balance.

CunningStunt_1

FX trading isn't the usecase i am referring too. I am referring to the use of SWIFT for crossborder payments. Messaging and currency conversation operate differently.

admin_default

1. SWIFT isn’t a technology that can be “replaced”. It’s a coalition of banks, hence the name, *Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication*. 2. According to their website, SWIFT has chosen to work with Chainlink to explore tokenization: https://www.swift.com/news-events/press-releases/swift-ubs-asset-management-and-chainlink-successfully-complete-innovative-pilot-bridge-tokenized-assets-existing-payment-systems 3. SWIFT isn’t “outdated”. The banks that comprise SWIFT work together to continually update and improve the standards and technologies they use.

CunningStunt_1

I'd imagine, in some ways we will both be correct. To what degree will be the interesting bit. I do expect XRP will be used by smaller institutions as a cheap efficient alternative to SWIFT/existing rails. Solely doing direct currency swaps. I don't think Big banks will be XRP's success story. I also expect larger businesses to utilize CBDC's and a middleware like chainlink. To take advantage of the costs savings smart contracts will produce. Which i guess is why ripple are trying to pivot into stables/CBDC platform?? >It should also be noted…recent developments suggest that SWIFT is exploring…exploring…the integration of Ripple’s technology, potentially enhancing cross border payment efficiency. Mind you…as of now, there is no official confirmation of a direct partnership between SWIFT and XRP. There’s still time for all that to unfold. That is why i got rid of my XRP in 2017. All hype and claims with no evidence! At least Chainlink is publically mentioned by the people using it! Good chat. Good luck.

Hidden5G

You raise a valid point about the potential of banks running their own chains and using middleware for interoperability. The concept of a unified golden record, as Chainlink describes, is an interesting approach and could offer a more efficient way to ensure consistency across multiple networks. However…while this could streamline processes, it still doesn’t entirely address the liquidity problem that Nostro-Vostro accounts solve today. Even with interoperability middleware, banks would STILL need to hold liquidity in various currencies to settle transactions, UNLESS there’s a mechanism like XRP to bridge the gap and provide real time liquidity across different chains. It’s great to see SWIFT exploring digital asset transactions with live trials planned, but the challenge remains in balancing efficiency with the liquidity and settlement solutions that tokenization and cross chain interoperability will require. It should also be noted…recent developments suggest that SWIFT is exploring…exploring…the integration of Ripple’s technology, potentially enhancing cross border payment efficiency. Mind you…as of now, there is no official confirmation of a direct partnership between SWIFT and XRP. There’s still time for all that to unfold.

Hidden5G

Tokenization and atomic swaps improve efficiency, but they don’t eliminate the need for Nostro and Vostro accounts as I noted above. Banks still have to hold reserves in multiple currencies for cross border transactions unless there’s a bridge asset like XRP to provide on demand liquidity. While SWIFT is adapting to a multi chain world, it’s still primarily a messaging system, not a settlement solution. Chainlink focuses on interoperability, but it doesn’t solve the liquidity issue. Even ECB board members recognize that tokenization alone won’t fix cross border settlement challenges. The institutions managing trillions are exploring multiple solutions, and XRP remains a strong option for real time liquidity settlement in a tokenized financial system.

StinkiePhish

Ripple as a technology company has an alternative to SWIFT messaging. XRP is not needed to compete with SWIFT. In fact, XRP has all downsides and no upsides towards using much, much more liquid traditional currencies like USD. If you were bank trying to send a large international payment in national currency X to a bank in currency Y, and there's not a liquid market of X/Y, do you think it is cheaper to: 1) X to USD, USD to Y, or 2) X to XRP, XRP to Y. The answer is that it is always, always cheaper to use USD in the middle because there is trillions of dollars of global USD demand. XRP has lower liquidity and higher spreads than USD. XRP's price is also not stable on any time frame denominated in any asset/currency.

Chimera_Ant

Chat GPT -> "Give me a review of XRP" XRP is a digital asset and cryptocurrency created by Ripple Labs, designed to facilitate fast, low-cost international money transfers. Here's a review of XRP, based on several key aspects: # 1. Technology and Use Case XRP was created with the goal of enabling efficient cross-border transactions. Unlike many other cryptocurrencies that aim for decentralized financial systems, XRP focuses on interoperability between different financial networks. It allows institutions to settle transactions quickly, with a transaction speed of around 3-5 seconds. This makes it much faster than Bitcoin or Ethereum, which can take minutes to confirm transactions. Ripple's consensus algorithm (not mining-based) allows XRP to process transactions with minimal energy consumption. The idea is that XRP can be used as a bridge currency to move money between different fiat currencies, without requiring a third-party intermediary like SWIFT or traditional banks. # 2. Speed and Cost XRP transactions are notably fast and cheap compared to traditional banking systems or other cryptocurrencies. The network can handle thousands of transactions per second (TPS), and the cost per transaction is often just a fraction of a cent. This makes it very appealing for remittance services, financial institutions, and large-scale payment systems. # 3. Adoption and Partnerships Ripple has secured significant partnerships with banks and financial institutions across the world. Companies like Santander, American Express, and PNC have explored or used Ripple's technology to improve their payment systems. However, its adoption hasn't been as widespread as some other cryptocurrencies, and it remains more focused on enterprise-level applications. # 4. Regulatory Issues One of the biggest hurdles XRP faces is regulatory uncertainty, especially in the U.S. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, claiming that XRP was an unregistered security. This lawsuit has created legal ambiguity for investors and institutions using XRP. The outcome of this case is still ongoing and could have significant implications for XRP's future. # 5. Market Performance XRP has been one of the top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization for several years, but its price can be volatile. Like other digital assets, its value tends to fluctuate based on broader market conditions and news related to Ripple's ongoing legal battles. # 6. Criticism Some critics argue that XRP is too centralized compared to Bitcoin or Ethereum, as Ripple Labs controls a large portion of the token supply. This centralization is seen as a negative by those who advocate for a more decentralized financial system. Additionally, the legal issues surrounding Ripple and XRP have cast a shadow over the asset, creating skepticism among some investors. # Conclusion XRP is a unique cryptocurrency with a clear use case for improving the efficiency of international money transfers. Its speed, low cost, and partnerships with established financial institutions make it an interesting project, especially for enterprises. However, regulatory uncertainty and concerns about centralization remain key factors that could affect its long-term success. Investors should weigh the potential for growth against the risks posed by the legal challenges and the competitive landscape of other payment technologies.