"Partnerships with banks are meaningless because banks just use RippleNet, not XRP"

No, many institutions begin with messaging solutions before adopting On‑Demand Liquidity, so the modular approach does not negate potential XRP usage.

Argument

Because some banks opt only for the messaging layer of RippleNet, critics see this as proof that they reject XRP altogether.

Response

The "bank partnerships are meaningless ’cause they don’t use XRP" jab is a swing that doesn’t land when you unpack the setup. RippleNet’s its own beast—a standalone network, not a blockchain, and it doesn’t lean on crypto or the XRP Ledger out of the gate. It’s a turbo-charged messaging system, hauling banks out of the stone age with cleaner, cheaper payment flows. But here’s the twist: when banks want to kick it up a notch, RippleNet can tap the XRP Ledger through On-Demand Liquidity (ODL), plugging in XRP for lightning-fast cross-border settlements. Many start with just the messaging, trimming fat and flubs, then eye ODL to wield XRP’s speed when they’re ready.

This isn’t banks dodging XRP—it’s them easing in. Traditional finance doesn’t leap to digital assets overnight; it’s a compliance crawl—test the waters, then dive deeper. RippleNet’s the shallow end: modernize first, cut costs, build trust. Then ODL’s the bridge—linking to the XRP Ledger’s nearly 1,000 nodes for real-time transfers, no pre-funded accounts clogging the pipes. Look at corridors like Japan to the UAE: messaging paves the way, XRP steps in when the timing’s right. It’s not a snub; it’s a staircase.

Dismissing partnerships because "they just use RippleNet" is like trashing a toolbox for not using the hammer first. RippleNet’s a separate track—non-blockchain, flexible—and ODL’s the hookup to XRP when banks green-light it. The groundwork’s real, not a fake-out—messaging today, XRP tomorrow. It’s not pointless; it’s phased.

References

See Also