Ripple’s rise in cross-border payments – using its XRP Ledger and On-Demand Liquidity service – has inspired a wave of competitors aiming to revolutionize global finance. Over the past year, numerous blockchain platforms and fintech networks have made strides in cross-border settlements and tokenized value transfer. These range from public blockchain payment rails to bank-led consortia, card network initiatives, stablecoin systems, and interoperability solutions. Each offers a unique approach to faster, cheaper, and more transparent international transactions, setting the stage for a competitive race alongside Ripple. In this article we explore the key players, their recent milestones, adoption status, institutional partners, and how their value propositions differ from Ripple’s – as well as their prospects for dominance in the future of cross-border finance.
Public-Chain Payment Rails
Public blockchain networks allow anyone to transact on a decentralized ledger. Several Layer-1 chains with strong payment capabilities are vying to facilitate cross-border transfers similar to Ripple’s XRP Ledger, often using their native tokens or stablecoins for settlement.
Stellar (XLM)
Stellar, originally co-founded by a Ripple alumnus, was built specifically for low-cost cross-border payments and financial inclusion. Its network enables quick exchange of fiat-backed tokens via the Stellar Lumens (XLM) token as a bridge. In the past year, Stellar’s biggest news has been its partnership with remittance giant MoneyGram.
The two launched a service allowing users to send and receive Circle’s USDC stablecoin over Stellar, with seamless cash payout through MoneyGram’s 300,000+ global agent locations. This effectively bridges crypto and fiat: a user can deposit cash, have it converted to USDC on Stellar, instantly transmit abroad, and the recipient cashes out in local currency via MoneyGram. The service, operational through 2024, demonstrates Stellar’s real-world reach in emerging markets and complements its earlier integrations (like a Ukraine aid disbursement pilot and various NGO projects).
Stellar’s value proposition is similar to Ripple’s – fast settlement (few seconds), very low fees, and an emphasis on currency exchange. However, Stellar focuses on retail remittances and stablecoins rather than relying on a volatile asset for liquidity. USDC on Stellar provides a stable settlement asset whereas Ripple’s system often utilizes XRP. By leveraging MoneyGram’s network, Stellar gained a distribution channel that Ripple lacked after its partnerships with MoneyGram ended.
Stellar’s open network and nonprofit governance (via the Stellar Development Foundation) appeal to fintechs and NGOs. Its institutional adoption is still nascent (no major bank is running on Stellar yet), but the MoneyGram integration has made it a leading rails for cash-to-crypto remittances. If more cash transfer companies and fintech wallets join, Stellar could dominate consumer cross-border corridors – especially for underbanked populations – though it still competes with Ripple in courting banks for treasury flows.
Algorand (ALGO)
Algorand is a high-performance public blockchain that touts instant finality and very low transaction costs, making it suitable for payments. While not designed exclusively for payments, Algorand’s technology has drawn interest for institutional use cases. Notably, the government of Italy selected Algorand to underpin a national platform for digital bank and insurance guarantees, marking the first time an EU nation is using blockchain for such financial guarantees.
Italian banks and insurance firms will use Algorand’s chain to issue and track guarantees, citing Algorand’s “unparalleled level of innovation and security” among permissionless networks. This deployment, expected to go live in 2023-24, shows institutional confidence in Algorand’s reliability and security.
In cross-border finance, Algorand has seen uptake in Latin America via fintech partners like Koibanx, which are building payment and asset tokenization solutions for banks and governments on Algorand. Algorand also supports popular stablecoins (USD Coin is live on Algorand), enabling fast stablecoin transfers that can settle in under four seconds. The chain’s Pure Proof-of-Stake consensus and scalability (capable of thousands of TPS) mean it could handle large payment volumes. Unlike Ripple, Algorand does not use a single bridge token – instead, any asset (fiat token or stablecoin) can be transacted.
This flexibility and its ISO 20022 compliance (a messaging standard for banking) have been highlighted as making Algorand friendly for integration with banks’ systems. The challenge is less about tech and more about ecosystem: Algorand is competing with a host of other L1 blockchains and has faced headwinds in crypto markets. However, its recent institutional endorsements and focus on regulated use cases position it as a dark horse – if more governments and banks use Algorand for digital currency projects or cross-border stablecoin payments, it could quietly build a dominant network alongside more high-profile players.
Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR)
Hedera isn’t a blockchain but a hashgraph-based distributed ledger, governed by a council of large corporations (including Google, IBM, Standard Bank and more). Hedera’s enterprise-grade design (high throughput, finality in seconds) has made it attractive for corporate and bank use cases. In the past year, Hedera achieved a milestone in cross-border finance: South Korea’s Shinhan Bank, along with Standard Bank and others, completed stablecoin remittance pilots on Hedera, transferring value between Korean won, Thai baht, and Taiwanese dollar in real time.
Shinhan minted won-backed stablecoins while partner banks minted their currency tokens; they exchanged value via Hedera with automatic FX conversion, eliminating correspondent banks. The result was near-instant settlement with fees of only fractions of a cent per transaction. Shinhan reported that Hedera’s Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility and fast consensus helped “eliminate intermediaries, reduce costs, and speed up the remittance process”.
Hedera’s differentiation is its governance and trust – its network is overseen by known institutions, which may comfort regulators and banks. It also offers high capacity (native token transfers can reach 10,000 TPS) and has built-in token services for stablecoins and assets. Compared to Ripple, which had to build relationships bank-by-bank, Hedera’s governing council includes global banks like Standard Bank and Shinhan, potentially easing its path to real adoption. Furthermore, Hedera’s design doesn’t rely on a volatile token for settlement; HBAR is used for network fees and security, but stablecoins or CBDCs can carry the actual value.
Hedera is already being used in other finance areas (like an international stock exchange’s bond settlements) and has a U.S. government payment pilot via an FedNow service provider. The network’s credibility and performance could make it a dominant backbone for wholesale bank-to-bank stablecoin transfers or even certain central bank digital currency (CBDC) projects. Its success will depend on expanding beyond pilots – but given the momentum (banks on its council actively trialing use cases), Hedera is a strong contender in enterprise cross-border infrastructure.
Bank-Run and Consortium DLTs
While public crypto networks aim to disrupt from the outside, many banks have pursued their own distributed ledger systems to improve interbank payments. These permissioned networks often eschew volatile cryptocurrencies in favor of tokenized deposits or central bank money, directly challenging Ripple’s proposition to banks. In the last 12 months, bank-led platforms like R3 Corda, JPMorgan’s Kinexys (JPM Coin system), and the Fnality consortium have hit significant milestones.
R3 Corda
R3’s Corda is a private distributed ledger platform originally developed by a consortium of banks. Unlike Ripple’s public XRP Ledger, Corda is permissioned – participants (usually financial institutions) run nodes and transact privately with one another. After years of development, Corda now underpins an ecosystem of live tokenized asset networks processing over 1 million transactions per day.
As of early 2025, R3 reported that over $10 billion of real-world assets have been tokenized on Corda-based platforms, ranging from bond markets (HSBC’s digital bond platform) to trade finance and cross-bank payment networks. This suggests unrivaled industry adoption in regulated markets – “trusted by the world’s leading banks” as R3 notes – with Corda effectively becoming a de facto standard for enterprise DLT.
One of Corda’s flagship uses in payments is the Voltron/Contour trade finance network and various central-bank sponsored projects for interbank payments. Corda differs from RippleNet in that it doesn’t use a single asset for settlement; instead it enables direct bilaterally-negotiated transfers (or token transfers) between institutions. This can reduce the need for correspondents by allowing banks to agree and settle transactions on a shared ledger with legal finality. Over the past year, R3 has also embraced interoperability with public blockchains – a notable pivot.
In May 2025 R3 announced a partnership with the Solana Foundation to bridge Corda with Solana’s public blockchain, aiming to bring Corda’s $10B+ in tokenized assets to public markets for liquidity. This convergence of private and public networks shows R3’s strategy to remain dominant: provide the backbone for banks (with privacy and compliance) but tap into public chain benefits (wider liquidity pools, DeFi, etc.).
Ripple’s approach tried to bring banks onto a network using a public token, which many banks were hesitant to adopt due to volatility and regulatory concerns. In contrast, Corda provided a way for banks to tokenize cash or assets in a controlled setting. The last 12 months proved out Corda’s model – from millions of daily transactions to regulatory greenlights like the UK’s digital sandbox uses. Given its entrenched base (dozens of major banks and market infrastructures) and adaptability (now linking to public chains), Corda is poised to remain a dominant DLT for wholesale finance. Its one limitation is that it’s fragmented (many separate Corda networks rather than one global network), but R3’s moves to connect networks could address that. If banks prefer networks they control, Corda will continue to grow as a Ripple alternative for interbank settlement – perhaps not as flashy, but deeply integrated in the plumbing of finance.
JPMorgan’s Kinexys (JPM Coin Network)
JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank, has forged its own path in blockchain-based payments. In 2019 it introduced JPM Coin, a token representing dollar deposits held at the bank, used for instant value transfer among JPMorgan clients. That initiative has now evolved into Kinexys Digital Payments, the rebranded blockchain division of JPMorgan (formerly known as Onyx). Kinexys is essentially a private, permissioned payment rail using tokenized commercial bank money – allowing 24/7 cross-border transfers between JPMorgan’s network of banking entities.
In late 2024, JPMorgan made headlines by linking Kinexys with Mastercard’s blockchain platform. Mastercard’s Multi-Token Network (MTN) connected with Kinexys to enable single-API settlement of B2B cross-border payments on Mastercard’s applications. The collaboration aims to provide greater transparency and near-real-time settlement for corporate payments, reducing the frictions of time zones and correspondent fees. It also effectively bridges one of the world’s biggest banks with one of the largest payment networks on a blockchain basis, underscoring Kinexys’s growing reach.
Over the past year, JPMorgan has continued expanding Kinexys while also exploring public blockchain avenues. In June 2025, it was reported that JPMorgan will pilot a deposit token (JPMUSD, sometimes called “JPMD”) on a public chain (believed to be Ethereum or Coinbase’s Base network), targeting broader interoperability. Importantly, JPMorgan stated it will “continue to run and grow” the private Kinexys network, which it believes serves a different user base from a public deposit token. Kinexys’s user base today is largely institutional: corporate treasury clients moving funds between JPM accounts in various countries, after-hours or for rapid internal settlement. This closed-loop but global network offers ultra-fast transfers (minutes or seconds) with finality in JPMorgan deposits, which is highly appealing for corporations – essentially an in-house alternative to SWIFT that’s always on.
The difference from Ripple is stark: rather than ask banks to use a shared public crypto asset, JPMorgan leverages its own balance sheet. JPM Coin transactions are settled in bank deposits fully backed by JPMorgan, so credit risk is minimal for participants – but only firms with JPMorgan accounts can use it. Kinexys is thus more akin to a bank consortium model within one bank’s ecosystem, whereas Ripple sought to be an independent network spanning many banks. Given JPMorgan’s influence (and the interest of peer banks – over 25 banks have joined its separate Liink network for information exchange), Kinexys could expand via correspondent relationships or by inviting other banks as nodes. The Mastercard integration shows a path to scale beyond one bank’s confines.
If other large banks don’t all build their own coins, they might join networks like Kinexys or Fnality (described next). In terms of dominance, JPMorgan’s solution has the advantage of an incumbent’s trust and existing client base. It could capture a significant share of high-value corporate cross-border flows among its clients. However, as a proprietary network, its dominance might be limited to JPM’s orbit unless it opens up or interoperates with others – something the bank appears to be considering through partnerships. In sum, Kinexys/JPM Coin is a top-down competitor that validates blockchain’s efficiency (transactions “in minutes” across borders instead of days) but within the traditional banking framework. Its success could push other banks to collaborate on similar networks rather than rely on an external crypto network like RippleNet.
Fnality (Utility Settlement Coin Consortium)
Fnality is a unique consortium initiative born from the “Utility Settlement Coin” project backed by central banks and major commercial banks. Its goal is to create a series of distributed payment systems using tokenized central bank money for use in wholesale markets (large interbank payments, securities settlement, FX, etc.). After years of development, Fnality reached a pivotal milestone in December 2023: shareholder banks Lloyds, Santander, and UBS conducted the world’s first live cross-border transactions using Fnality’s system, transferring funds that were digitally represented but fully backed by central bank deposits.
These inaugural payments were in sterling, leveraging an innovative Bank of England omnibus account that holds pooled funds on behalf of Fnality participants. By tokenizing these funds on a blockchain, Fnality enabled instant transfer between banks with the safety of central bank money – a holy grail in terms of eliminating settlement risk. This marked the first new payment system using BoE’s updated framework for innovative payment operators, and essentially proved that DLT can handle regulated high-value payments.
Fnality is owned by a who’s-who of global banks and infrastructures – its shareholders include Goldman Sachs, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Nasdaq, CIBC, MUFG, and many more, signaling broad support for its cross-currency, 24/7 vision. With the sterling system live in a limited capacity, Fnality is now working on launching networks for other major currencies like USD and EUR with cooperation from the Federal Reserve and ECB. The aim is an interoperable set of national platforms where banks in each jurisdiction can settle obligations in tokenized central bank funds, then link across currencies for near instant PvP (payment versus payment) in FX or delivery-vs-payment in securities. Planned services include intraday repo and FX swaps to improve liquidity management for banks.
Fnality’s proposition is perhaps the most direct challenger to legacy systems like correspondent banking and even to Ripple’s vision, but from within the system. It doesn’t rely on any cryptocurrency or even on commercial bank tokens – it uses actual central bank account balances (thus no credit risk and full regulatory oversight). In essence, Fnality could become the new backbone for wholesale cross-border settlements if it rolls out successfully in multiple currencies. Its differentiation from Ripple is clear: while Ripple offered a bridge asset to provide liquidity between fiat currencies, Fnality aims to allow atomic swaps of fiat-on-ledger (e.g., tokenized USD for tokenized EUR) with all parties prefunding in central bank money.
This removes the need for a bridge currency altogether in interbank flows, at the cost of requiring all participants to hold cash in each Fnality system. Given its strong support and the once-in-a-generation nature of establishing a “systemically important” payment network (as Fnality’s CEO noted), Fnality has a high chance to become a dominant utility in wholesale finance. It will likely complement rather than completely replace other networks – e.g. it might handle interbank settlement, while solutions like Ripple or Stellar target smaller institutions or retail remittances – but in the high-value space, Fnality could outpace all crypto-based solutions by offering the ultimate trust (central bank money) on a modern platform. The next 12 months will be crucial as it seeks regulatory approval in the US and EU. If achieved, Fnality could go live with dollar and euro settlements, instantly making it a leading network for cross-border payment versus payment, and raising the competitive bar that RippleNet must clear to win over big banks.
Card Network Blockchain Initiatives
Global card networks Visa and Mastercard have also stepped into blockchain-based cross-border payments, leveraging their vast reach in the banking industry. Unlike Ripple – a startup building new rails from scratch – Visa and Mastercard are integrating distributed ledger technology to upgrade their existing networks or create parallel ones for specific use cases, such as B2B transfers. In the past year, both companies hit notable milestones: Visa’s B2B Connect has expanded its footprint and incorporated stablecoins, while Mastercard launched its Multi-Token Network (MTN) and forged partnerships with banks.
Visa B2B Connect
Visa B2B Connect is a non-card payment network that Visa launched commercially in 2019 to move corporate payments directly between participating banks. It uses elements of distributed ledger technology (co-developed with IBM and based on Linux Foundation’s Hyperledger) to create a multilateral network where each bank node can transact with others in a direct, secure fashion, rather than through chains of correspondent banks. In practical terms, a payment sent via B2B Connect goes straight from the origin bank to the beneficiary bank on Visa’s system, with Visa acting as a central orchestrator and providing a cryptographic identity token for each bank to ensure security and compliance.
Over the last couple of years, Visa steadily grew this network, and 2023-2024 saw significant expansion. Visa reports that B2B Connect now spans 109 countries worldwide, covering many key corporate corridors. Dozens of banks (over 30 as of late 2022) have joined, and the network can route payments to banks representing over a hundred countries. For example, Qatar Islamic Bank recently partnered with Visa to use B2B Connect for cross-border business payments to 120 countries, integrating the platform for its corporate clients’ needs (as announced in mid-2024).
From a features standpoint, B2B Connect offers predictable fees and end-to-end visibility of payment status – addressing two major pain points of traditional wire transfers. Payments are typically completed next-day or within two days, faster than many correspondent transfers (which can take 3-5 days). It’s not as instant as some crypto networks, but Visa prioritizes compliance and integration with existing banking processes (it uses ISO 20022 messaging and can carry rich remittance data). The use of a distributed ledger under the hood ensures data integrity and that all parties see the same transaction record. Crucially, no cryptocurrency is involved – settlement is done by debiting and crediting banks’ accounts via Visa’s treasury services, with the ledger providing the transparency. This approach appeals to banks that may be wary of crypto volatility or unclear regulations, giving Visa an edge in enterprise adoption.
Visa’s innovation in the past year also includes embracing stablecoins at the settlement layer. In September 2023, Visa announced it had integrated Circle’s USDC stablecoin for settlement payments, even conducting live pilot transactions on the Solana blockchain. It moved “millions of USDC” between its partners (like Worldpay and Nuvei, major payment processors) over Solana and Ethereum to settle fiat transactions that were made on Visa’s network. In other words, rather than using legacy bank wires to settle with merchants or acquirers, Visa itself can pay out via USDC on a blockchain, achieving near-instant finality 24/7. This is a separate initiative from B2B Connect but complementary – it shows Visa is willing to use the best of both worlds: a closed DLT network for bank-to-bank transfers (B2B Connect) and open blockchain stablecoins for certain settlement flows. The end goal is the same as Ripple’s: cheaper, faster cross-border movement of value. Visa’s immense advantage is its incumbent status: it has existing relationships with thousands of banks and merchants.
If it can successfully modernize those rails with blockchain tech, it could rapidly achieve what Ripple struggled with for years – mainstream bank adoption. Already, B2B Connect and stablecoin pilots align with the G20’s goal of cheaper, faster, more transparent payments. The question is whether Visa’s network effects will translate into network use: banks must opt in and actively route payments through B2B Connect. Given it was recognized by Global Finance as a top innovation in 2023 and banks like Switzerland’s Klarpay call it a “game-changer” for service delivery, momentum is growing. Visa B2B Connect could become a dominant B2B payment rail, especially for corporates, by leveraging Visa’s brand trust and meeting banks halfway (no radical new asset, just a better pipeline). In competition with Ripple, Visa’s strategy might appeal more to conservative institutions, though it lacks the immediate finality of using a crypto token. Over time, if Visa also integrates CBDCs or more stablecoins, it may cover both bases – a closed network for predictability and open networks for speed – making it a formidable competitor in cross-border finance.
Mastercard Multi-Token Network (MTN)
Mastercard has been very active in the blockchain and digital currency space, launching various pilots (from blockchain-based traceability to crypto cards). In June 2023, Mastercard unveiled its Multi-Token Network (MTN) as a new platform to foster innovation in regulated digital assets. MTN is essentially a sandbox and set of APIs for developers and financial institutions to experiment with tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and even CBDCs under Mastercard’s roof. The beta version launched in the UK in summer 2023, inviting a number of banks to participate in testing use cases such as tokenized commercial bank deposits (similar to JPM Coin concept), transacting with stablecoins, and interoperating with CBDCs. This reflects Mastercard’s view that the future of money will be multi-asset (hence “multi-token”) and that a common framework and standards can help integrate these new forms of value into commerce.
Over the last year, Mastercard has aggressively formed partnerships to build out MTN. A standout development was the connection of Mastercard’s MTN with J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys network in late 2024, as discussed earlier. By integrating with Kinexys, Mastercard enabled mutual clients to settle their B2B transactions through a single API connecting both networks. This effectively means a company using Mastercard’s platform could pay a company banking with J.P. Morgan, and the payment would be settled by moving tokenized deposits on Kinexys – all in the background – giving fast, on-chain finality.
Both parties touted the benefits: reduced frictions of time zones, more transparency, and speed in cross-border commerce. For Mastercard, which has relationships with countless merchants and businesses, integrating with large banks’ private token networks could bootstrap MTN’s adoption. Beyond JPM, Mastercard also brought in fintechs – for instance, Ondo Finance joined MTN to bring tokenized US Treasury assets onto the network (providing liquidity for on-chain transactions).
Mastercard’s approach differs from Ripple’s by focusing on tokenized fiat and regulated assets rather than a free-floating crypto. It essentially wants to be the on-chain interoperability layer for banks, merchants, and fintechs, much as it has been in card payments. Its network is designed with compliance (Crypto Credential identity framework), consumer protections, and privacy in mind – areas where open crypto networks have faced challenges. In terms of milestones, Mastercard ran a successful pilot of tokenized bank deposits in 2023 under the Bank of England’s sandbox and demonstrated cross-border use cases like FX transactions on-chain (initially this was misreported as just FX trading, but corrected to cross-border payments). The company has openly stated it sees promise in enabling regulated money to move on-chain and that industry collaboration is crucial.
Given Mastercard’s global reach (2B+ cards, acceptance in 200+ countries), if MTN graduates from pilot to production, it could rapidly scale. One can imagine a future where a bank in the MTN network can send a tokenized GBP to a bank in another country who receives it as tokenized EUR, all through Mastercard’s rails – quite similar to Ripple’s vision, but using bank tokens rather than XRP and with Mastercard as the intermediary coordinating exchange and settlement. The chances of Mastercard becoming a dominant player are high if they execute well: they have the trust of banks and merchants, and they are technology-agnostic enough to integrate whatever digital currency clients prefer (be it stablecoins, CBDCs, or deposit tokens).
While Ripple offered a from-scratch network, Mastercard (and Visa) leverage existing networks and overlay new tech. That said, MTN is still in early stages; it must prove that it can handle scale, maintain security, and navigate regulatory approvals for using tokenized deposits broadly. If 2024–2025 pilots succeed and expand (perhaps into regions like EU or APAC), Mastercard could emerge as a leader in cross-border blockchain payments, potentially relegating solutions like Ripple to niche uses. On the other hand, if banks decide to stick with in-house solutions (like JPM’s own network) or public stablecoins, Mastercard will need to continuously prove its added value as the connective tissue.
Stablecoin Settlement Layers (USDC and Beyond)
Stablecoins – digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies – have exploded in use over the past few years, and they are increasingly central to cross-border payment innovation. Circle’s USD Coin, in particular, has positioned itself as a sort of “digital dollar” for the internet and is being integrated into various payment networks. Unlike Ripple’s XRP, which is volatile, USDC is fully reserved 1:1 with dollars, making it more directly suitable as a settlement currency for risk-averse institutions. In the past 12 months, stablecoin-based settlement has gone from experimental to practical, with USDC leading the charge thanks to Circle’s partnerships with traditional finance players.
Circle, the issuer of USDC, has developed an extensive payments framework around the stablecoin. USDC operates on multiple blockchains (Ethereum, Stellar, Algorand, Solana, and more), meaning it can serve as a universal settlement medium across diverse ecosystems. Circle has also rolled out services like Circle Account and Circle APIs, which let fintechs and businesses seamlessly swap between bank transfers and USDC, and even a Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) to move USDC between blockchains instantly. All these are pieces of a potential “USDC network” where moving money is as simple as sending an email, but with a regulated stablecoin.
The traction is evident. Major payments companies are embracing USDC for cross-border flows. As noted, Visa expanded its stablecoin pilot to use USDC for settling transactions, directly sending USDC to settle with acquirers instead of waiting on bank wires. It highlighted that this can cut out the typical 2-day international wire lag and associated costs. Another example: MoneyGram’s Stellar integration effectively made USDC a global remittance currency – the user may not know it’s USDC under the hood, but the stablecoin facilitates instant value transfer between MoneyGram locations in different countries. Stripe, a global payments processor, also uses USDC (on Ethereum and Solana) to pay out creators and freelancers in countries where fast USD payouts are difficult. PayPal launched its own USD stablecoin (PYUSD) in 2023, further validating the model (and PayPal could integrate it for cross-border payments between its millions of users).
For institutional settlement, a landmark moment was BNY Mellon announcing custody support for USDC reserves, and BlackRock managing a chunk of USDC cash reserves – these steps show growing trust in USDC’s stability. Circle itself has been advocating USDC as a complement or alternative to traditional correspondent banking. In late 2022 and through 2023, regulators and lawmakers have paid attention: some jurisdictions (like Singapore) have been open to stablecoin use under regulation, and the U.S. is debating a stablecoin bill to provide federal oversight and potentially access to Fed backstop for issuers. All this lends credibility that a well-regulated stablecoin could become mainstream for cross-border settlement.
Compared to Ripple’s solution which uses XRP as a bridge asset (requiring market liquidity and introducing exchange risk), using USDC (or other fiat stablecoins) means parties transact in a currency that doesn’t fluctuate in value and is directly redeemable for actual dollars. This eliminates the volatility risk, which is a major consideration for businesses. The trade-off is one needs a reliable issuer and enough liquidity in the corridors of interest. USDC has maintained its peg well (aside from a brief depeg during a bank run in March 2023 which quickly resolved), and it’s backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries and cash. Its market cap is around $25 billion as of mid-2025, making it one of the top stablecoins, though it has competitors like Tether which is even larger (but less transparently backed, thus less institution-friendly).
The last year saw stablecoins becoming increasingly accepted by banks and fintechs: in an industry survey, over half of global banks reported active involvement in cross-border blockchain payment projects, often citing stablecoins as a tool to achieve faster settlements. The Atlantic Council and Bank for International Settlements have even discussed stablecoins in the context of improving cross-border payments while CBDCs are still in development.
Circle’s USDC, with its established partnerships (Visa, MoneyGram, Mastercard (via cards and likely future integrations), Stripe, Coinbase, etc.), has a strong chance to be a dominant settlement layer for digital value transfer. If governments provide clear regulatory frameworks, stablecoins could see usage by traditional banks as well – for instance, a bank could hold and send USDC as easily as it does fiat, once legal/treatment questions are settled. There is also the scenario of multiple currency stablecoins (Circle has EURC for euros, and others offer GBP or JPY stablecoins). This could mimic today’s correspondent system (holding various fiat balances) but on blockchain rails with near-instant conversion via exchanges or automated market makers, which is not far off from Ripple’s vision except with stablecoins in each currency instead of one bridging token.
In sum, stablecoin networks like USDC are effectively competing with Ripple by offering a different path to the same goal: making money move globally at internet speed. Their strength lies in being denominated in familiar currency units. However, they do depend on trust in the issuer and banking partners to maintain the peg and liquidity. Ripple’s XRP was meant to be trust-minimized (no central issuer), but that very feature made banks uneasy. Stablecoins have found a middle ground: blockchain-based yet (ideally) fully collateralized and audited. Over the next year, watch for Circle’s continued expansion (perhaps more direct bank integrations or involvement in CBDC interoperability tests – they’ve been part of pilot projects like Project Dunbar for multi-CBDC). Should USDC or similar stablecoins get wider regulatory approval, they could indeed emerge as a dominant cross-border settlement medium, potentially relegating solutions like XRP to more niche roles (e.g. in exotic corridors where fiat liquidity is poor, a role XRP still sometimes aims to fill). The likely scenario is coexistence: stablecoins for heavily used corridors and consumer/business payments, XRP or other crypto for niche liquidity, and eventually CBDCs for central bank to central bank settlement – all interconnected.
Interoperability and Messaging Layers
A crucial aspect of the future of cross-border finance is interoperability – connecting various blockchains, CBDC networks, and traditional systems so value can move seamlessly. Ripple’s network in a sense is one approach to interoperability (linking banks through XRP). But other players are focusing on bridging different ledgers or integrating with existing messaging standards. Key developments in the last year involve projects like Quant’s Overledger, SWIFT’s CBDC connector, and IBM’s World Wire. These aren’t standalone payment networks per se, but they enable different systems to talk to each other, which could either enhance Ripple’s utility or render a single-provider solution less necessary.
Quant Network (Overledger)
UK-based Quant Network has developed Overledger, an API gateway that allows applications to interoperate across multiple blockchains and legacy systems. Quant’s vision is a “network of networks,” where institutions don’t have to choose one ledger (like Ripple vs Corda vs Ethereum) – instead, they can use Overledger to access any or multiple networks with ease. In the past year, Quant achieved a significant credibility boost: it was selected as a partner in the European Central Bank’s Digital Euro pilot project in May 2025. Quant is helping the ECB prototype a digital euro with advanced features like conditional payments and multi-party transactions, leveraging its interoperability tech to ensure the digital euro can interact with existing financial systems and other networks. This is a major validation of Quant’s approach, showcasing its “blockchain-agnostic” capabilities on one of the highest-profile CBDC projects in the world.
Quant has also been involved in projects like the Bank of England’s Project Rosalind (retail CBDC API), and it’s a founding member of the Digital Pound Foundation in the UK, contributing to policy and design discussions. Its Overledger has integrated with popular enterprise DLTs (e.g., Corda, Hyperledger) and public chains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, etc.), enabling use cases such as multi-ledger asset swaps and aggregated smart contracts.
The unique value proposition here is that Quant isn’t pushing a single network or token (although it does have a utility token QNT for licensing its tech); rather, it facilitates interconnection. In a future where a bank might use RippleNet for some corridors, SWIFT for others, and stablecoins for yet others, Overledger could provide a unified interface. This might indirectly compete with Ripple by reducing the switching cost of using multiple networks (so a bank need not commit fully to Ripple if it can plug into many). On the flip side, if Ripple or XRP Ledger becomes one of many integrated networks, a solution like Overledger could actually drive usage to it by making it accessible alongside others.
Quant’s recent momentum – especially the ECB partnership – indicates it could become a behind-the-scenes powerhouse. If the digital euro or digital pound eventually launch with Quant’s technology in their payment architecture, Overledger would effectively be part of critical national payment infrastructure. Its chances of dominance are a bit different to others in this list: it’s more likely to become a ubiquitous middleware than a household name network. But in doing so, it might shape the landscape significantly. For example, if Overledger links CBDC networks across borders, then cross-border payments happen through those CBDCs and Quant, not necessarily through an intermediary currency like XRP. Quant’s CEO has framed their mission as enabling a “secure digital future” with interoperability at the core, and the last year’s developments show that major institutions see merit in that. In sum, while not a payment rail itself, Quant is poised to be the connector of many rails – a role that could either diminish the need for any one dominant network or ensure that whichever networks do dominate are all interoperable.
SWIFT’s CBDC Interlinking (CBDC Connector)
SWIFT, the decades-old cooperative that provides international bank messaging, is determined not to be left behind. Recognizing the threat and opportunity of blockchain, SWIFT has been actively experimenting with ways to connect the emerging world of CBDCs and tokenized assets with the existing financial system. In 2022, SWIFT unveiled a prototype CBDC interoperability solution (often called the “CBDC connector”) that could enable a bank using the SWIFT interface to send value from a CBDC network in one country to another bank on a different DLT or traditional system. Over the past 12 months, this effort has progressed through sandbox trials and into more concrete plans.
In March 2023, SWIFT announced the results of a 12-week sandbox test involving 18 central and commercial banks using its CBDC interlink solution. The trials simulated nearly 5,000 transactions between different blockchain networks and existing fiat payment systems, successfully exchanging CBDC to CBDC and CBDC to traditional currency in a cross-border context. Banks including the Bank of France, Deutsche Bundesbank, HSBC, Standard Chartered, and others participated and found “clear potential and value” in the approach. Essentially, SWIFT proved that its API-based CBDC Connector could act as a translator and router, allowing, for example, a digital euro on an Ethereum-based network to be sent and arrive as a digital dollar on a Corda-based network. Following the positive results, SWIFT is now developing a beta version of the connector and planning a second phase of sandbox testing focusing on securities settlement and trade finance use cases.
What SWIFT brings is its vast network: 11,000 institutions in 200+ countries are already connected to SWIFT. If SWIFT offers a turnkey solution for them to interface with any new blockchain-based currency, many banks might opt to use it rather than adopt a completely new network like Ripple. In fact, SWIFT’s experiments showed it can enable interoperability without requiring banks to ditch existing messaging standards – the connector uses APIs and could integrate with ISO 20022 messaging which SWIFT itself has migrated to. Bank executives involved highlighted that interoperability via a neutral platform like SWIFT is key to avoid “digital islands” of CBDCs.
In terms of differentiation, SWIFT isn’t creating a coin or ledger; it’s more of a communication and coordination layer (with some smart contracts possibly used for atomic transactions). The outcome of a SWIFT-facilitated payment could still be, say, a blockchain transfer on a specific network, but orchestrated through familiar SWIFT channels. For banks, that minimizes disruption. For Ripple, this is a competitive threat: one of Ripple’s selling points was connecting financial institutions for cross-border payments more efficiently than SWIFT. If SWIFT upgrades itself to achieve near-real-time atomic settlement by bridging CBDCs or other tokens, banks may feel less urgency to leap to an external network.
However, SWIFT’s solution could also incorporate networks like RippleNet or Stellar as endpoints – SWIFT cares about connectivity, not exclusivity. Recently, SWIFT partnered with Chainlink on interoperability and with Capgemini on linking digital assets; it’s covering all bases. The chances of SWIFT remaining dominant are high given its entrenched position, provided it continues to innovate. The last year suggests it is doing exactly that. By proactively working with central banks and proving out technology, SWIFT might maintain its central hub role in the future of cross-border payments. In scenario one, SWIFT’s connector becomes the highway and various networks (Ripple, Corda, CBDCs, etc.) are like different vehicles on it – meaning Ripple could still exist but not necessarily be the highway itself. In scenario two, if SWIFT were too slow and networks like Ripple had already captured a critical mass, SWIFT could have been displaced – but reality shows SWIFT is moving fast and banks are inclined to stick with it if it delivers. For now, it appears more likely that SWIFT will co-opt the innovations of blockchain and incorporate them, rather than being supplanted by a single new network.
IBM World Wire
IBM World Wire is a noteworthy historical attempt to modernize cross-border payments using blockchain. Launched in 2018, World Wire was a Stellar-based global payment network aimed at regulated financial institutions. It integrated payment messaging, clearing, and settlement on Stellar’s ledger, allowing institutions to transmit monetary value in the form of digital assets (cryptocurrencies or stablecoins) with near real-time clearing. IBM initially achieved impressive coverage – at launch, World Wire had payment endpoints in 72 countries, supporting 47 currencies and 44 banking locations. It even lined up letters of intent from six international banks to issue their own stablecoins on the network (for currencies like Euro, Indonesian Rupiah, Philippine Peso, Brazilian Real, etc.). Settlement could be done using Stellar Lumens or any stablecoin agreed upon, with IBM serving as network operator and validator.
In the past 12 months, IBM hasn’t been loudly promoting World Wire – in fact, in late 2020 IBM shifted strategy. They open-sourced the World Wire codebase in 2021 and stopped trying to operate it as a proprietary network. The rationale was that rather than competing head-on in running a payments network (which involves regulatory hurdles and building liquidity), IBM would leverage the technology and lessons to help clients build their own solutions. Essentially, IBM contributed World Wire’s core to the open-source community (Stellar is open-source by nature) and pivoted to integrating blockchain for clients via IBM Consulting.
That said, World Wire’s legacy is apparent in current trends: it pioneered the idea of using stablecoins or digital tokens as bridge assets in traditional remittances. For example, a bank on World Wire could use a USD stablecoin or XLM as the vehicle to move value between fiat endpoints, exactly the model many are following now. IBM’s effort also highlighted the importance of compliance and trust – they baked in features for KYC/AML and had a permissioned on-ramp for institutions.
Today, World Wire is not a major active network (especially compared to others discussed), so its chance to “become dominant” per se is low. But IBM’s continued work in blockchain for banking (they’re involved in bank blockchain projects, trade finance, etc.) means the spirit of World Wire lives on. In some ways, one could view the Stellar-MoneyGram integration as picking up where World Wire left off – using Stellar for real-world transfers, just spearheaded by MoneyGram rather than IBM. IBM’s choice to open-source indicates they believe the industry will coalesce on shared networks rather than proprietary ones. IBM could still play a significant role as a service provider: for instance, a regional bank or central bank might hire IBM to implement a Stellar-based remittance corridor or a Hyperledger-based clearing system. If those proliferate, IBM benefits indirectly.
In summary, World Wire was ahead of its time in demonstrating point-to-point blockchain payments with instant settlement, and it proved out scaling (72 countries is no small feat). It showed that a network using Lumens as a bridge and anchors issuing currency tokens could indeed move money more efficiently. The concept of anchors in World Wire parallels the concept of gateways in Ripple’s original design. However, IBM’s retrenchment means World Wire as a standalone network isn’t challenging Ripple now; instead, its ideas have diffused into other projects. For the purposes of this overview, World Wire serves as a case study of how traditional tech firms approached the problem. It’s a reminder that technology alone isn’t enough – adoption is key. IBM had the tech and even the network reach, but perhaps lacked the incentive (or nimbleness) to drive new adoption, whereas a focused company like Ripple pushed relentlessly.
That said, IBM’s brand and enterprise trust mean if they ever re-enter with a new offering or support a particular network (say IBM backing Stellar or an Hyperledger-based CBDC network), that could greatly boost that network’s credibility. Currently, IBM appears content partnering (they work with Stellar Development Foundation as a member of Hyperledger, and collaborate with the likes of Ripple and others through industry groups). So while World Wire won’t dominate, IBM’s influence in enterprise blockchain could shape which networks thrive. Banks often look for IBM’s nod or integration support when adopting new tech, so IBM’s alignment could help a competitor overtake Ripple in certain markets.