Ripple vs. SWIFT battle escalates with ‘Fax vs. Internet commentary fanning the flames

Published on:

Trusted editorial office content, reviewed by leading industry experts and experienced editors. Advertising Disclosure

Lasting decades competition between Ripple and SWIFT took a modern turn this week after a bold comment from SWIFT’s Chief Innovation Officer, Tom Zschach, that sparked backlash from the Ripple and XRP communities. Zschach argued that calling a private token “bridge currency” is like calling fax the “Internet.” The remark sparked heated debate among Ripple supporters, many of whom believed the analogy was either wrong or thinly veiled. The role of XRP in global cross-border settlements.

Ripple community reacts strongly to SWIFT’s ‘fax’ remarks.

In a social media post, X Zschach there was a spark controversy, rejecting the idea of ​​private tokens serving as bridge currencies. His fax and internet analogy sparked discussions in the Ripple community, adding that while private tokens may provide speed, they are only revolutionary in a world without Wi-Fi.

One Ripple supporter, known as 24HRSCRYPTO on X, he objected Zschach’s analogy, turning it back to SWIFT itself. They argued this SWIFT infrastructure has been in existence for several decades resembled a fax machine, while XRP represented the Internet of Value.

Other community members he noticed that XRP is not a private token, but rather publicly traded and are easily available assets on the XRP, CEX and DEX ledgers, highlighting its transparency compared to proprietary bank-owned solutions. They also ridiculed Zschach for asking Grok what a private token was, suggesting that he revealed a impoverished understanding of the topic and proved why SWIFT is slowly being replaced.

Criticism of Zschach’s remarks went further when market analyst Crypto Sensei questioned why SWIFT ignored blockchain technology for years when it truly lacked revolutionary value. He suggested it SWIFT’s Recent Experiments with Digital Assets it merely confirmed that blockchain is indeed a competitive force changing the global payments landscape.

Ripple developer Matt Hamilton also joined the discussion, underlining that public, permissionless tokens like XRP ultimately have a better chance of adoption compared to the private, closed systems that banks seek to control. Debates and discussions about X have highlighted not only the clash of technologies, but also the deeper struggle between centralized legacy funding and decentralized open source innovation.

Legacy SWIFT fees are subject to review

The controversy caused by Zschach’s statement did not end there. In a detailed follow-up post to 24HRSCRYPTO exposed what they described as the hidden costs of SWIFT. Working in this industry, they revealed that sending a straightforward wire transfer can cost $17.50 from the sending bank and another $17.50 from the receiving bank, which means a $35 fee before the money is transferred. In some cases, if funds have gone missing, customers will be charged an additional “investigation fee” to trace their own transaction.

According to the post, this fee-based model highlighted how SWIFT profitability was due to friction rather than performance. Ripple, in turn, seeks to eliminate this friction almost immediate settlement and transaction costs reduced to a fraction of a cent.

Ripple
Source: Chart from 24HRSCRYPTO on X

24HRSCRYPTO went further to state this banks are already adapting to the changing financial landscape by shifting to digital assets rather than clinging to antiquated infrastructure. While banks stand to lose billions in transfer fees, the argument suggested they could regain financial ground by accumulating XRP, the modern power of the emerging financial system.

Ripple
XRP Trading at $2.98 on 1D Chart | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Featured image from Getty Images, chart from Tradingview.com

Editorial process for bitcoinist is focused on providing thoroughly researched, true and unbiased content. We adhere to tough sourcing standards, and each page is carefully reviewed by our team of top technology experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance and value of our content to our readers.

Related

Leave a Reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here