"Blockchain is not needed; cross‑border or domestic transfers work fine otherwise"

No, the XRP Ledger provides 24/7, near-instant settlement beyond the capabilities of traditional banking rails such as SWIFT or ACH.

Argument

Some suggest that legacy systems like SWIFT, SEPA, or ACH already fulfill payment needs without requiring a specialized blockchain asset.

Response

The "blockchain’s a waste, legacy transfers are fine" shrug gets torched when you clock the XRP Ledger’s game. Big FX highways like USD-EUR run smooth—banks, tight spreads, no sweat. But veer into exotic lanes like MXN-PHP, and it’s a slog—SWIFT and ACH lean on correspondent banks, piling on fees and delays. Remittance outfits won’t park big nostro/vostro stacks for every oddball currency—liquidity’s a ghost, and settlements drag for days. XRP Ledger? It’s a 24/7 beast—under 4 seconds flat, pennies to play, nearly 1,000 nodes humming. No pre-funded bloat—On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) bridges Pesos to Real or Baht to Rupees on the spot, shredding capital drag.

Jack Mallers saw the genius and swiped the playbook for Strike—cross-border zaps, slick and direct. But here’s the hitch: he bolted it onto Bitcoin, where transactions crawl and fees bite harder than XRPL’s whisper-quiet hum. XRP’s built for this—lean, instant, cheap—while BTC’s heftier spine lags behind. Stablecoins or rival chains might scrap in the ring, but XRPL’s relentless speed and cost edge own the turf—no fluff, just fire.

"Fine" covers the USD-EUR crowd, but "better" conquers the fringes. Legacy rails stumble in the weeds—XRP Ledger’s the full-map champ: always-on, global, no friction. Strike’s a nod to the model, but Bitcoin’s the slower horse. It’s not a tire patch; it’s a rocket swap—banks are still catching up.

References

See Also