Kamilah Stevenson, a well-known wealth coach and educator, has argued that SWIFT’s recent decision to develop a blockchain-based settlement system without utilising XRP does not render the cryptocurrency’s proposed use case irrelevant for global cross-border payments.
SWIFT’s blockchain settlement trial
Stevenson addressed a key concern raised among XRP investors regarding SWIFT’s ongoing blockchain pilot. As the primary global banking messaging provider, SWIFT connects over 11,000 financial institutions worldwide and is central to the international transfer of payment instructions.
In July, SWIFT announced a pilot program in partnership with 17 major banks across six continents, including Citi, HSBC, Wells Fargo, UBS, and Standard Chartered. This initiative aims to test the transfer of tokenized bank deposits between institutions using a blockchain-based solution.
According to Stevenson, SWIFT’s platform integrates a modified version of Ethereum alongside tokenized commercial bank deposits. These tokenized deposits represent digital equivalents of traditional bank money but remain inside a system managed strictly by participating banks.
She emphasized that “it does not use XRP,” and described how this point had been frequently highlighted as harming XRP’s investment narrative and projected market role.
Mini dictionary: SWIFT is an interbank messaging network that plays a critical role in international finance by facilitating secure and standardized cross-border payment instructions between more than 11,000 banks and financial institutions globally.
Liquidity and the bridge asset debate
Stevenson’s main argument lies in distinguishing between internal transfers of a single currency and conversions between different national currencies. She explained that moving tokenized dollars is efficient among banks holding the same asset, but this process does not resolve the challenge of exchanging one currency for another, such as dollars to euros or yen.
The liquidity required for such conversions still relies on both currency pairs being readily available. Within the correspondent banking model, institutions are forced to maintain pre-funded accounts—also known as nostro accounts—in multiple currencies and regions, which results in capital being tied up and increases operational demands.
Stevenson suggested that, in theory, XRP was designed to serve as a neutral bridge asset. If implemented, it could allow banks and payment providers to exchange local currency for XRP, transfer value rapidly, and then convert XRP into another local currency for the recipient.
Stevenson underscored that SWIFT’s new system, despite its technological progress, “does not solve” the persistent problem of cross-currency liquidity. However, she also acknowledged the lack of clear evidence that major banks plan to use XRP for this particular role at present.
On the other hand, SWIFT’s approach to using tokenized deposits within a closed, bank-controlled ecosystem suggests that institutions may prefer models where established players retain oversight, rather than adopting third-party cryptocurrencies.
Ongoing debate over cross-border payments
The comparison between SWIFT’s blockchain innovation and XRP’s function has reignited debate about the future of cross-border settlements. While supporters of XRP highlight its design for instant currency bridging, the industry’s largest banks have signaled interest in blockchain solutions that retain direct institutional control.
The growing adoption of blockchain technology in payment systems has prompted ongoing speculation about which digital assets, if any, will be adopted at scale by major financial players for cross-border transactions.
| SWIFT Blockchain Pilot | XRP’s Proposed Use Case |
|---|---|
| Closed, bank-controlled system using tokenized deposits | Open, neutral bridge asset for cross-currency conversion |
| Does not require XRP | Requires adoption by banks for liquidity bridging |
| Participants include 17 global banks | No evidence yet of large-scale adoption by banks |
