Banks Wary, Ripple Ready — ODL & RLUSD Meet SWIFT Skepticism as Schwartz Slams PoW in Escalating XRP vs. Litecoin Showdown

SWIFT vs Ripple: Competing Visions for the Future of Cross-Border Settlement The debate over the future of cross-border payments is intensifying, with SWIFT’s Chief Information Officer Tom Zschach recently stating that banks are unlikely to adopt XRP-based rails. Instead, he suggested that financial institutions will prioritize internal settlement systems or stablecoin solutions.

The comments underscore the cautious stance many incumbents maintain toward public blockchain assets, despite growing interest in digital currencies. Ripple, however, has pushed back with a suite of offerings designed to meet banks halfway.

Its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) product uses XRP as a bridge asset to source liquidity in real time, enabling instant cross-border value transfers without pre-funded nostro accounts. Ripple argues ODL lowers cost and frees capital, making it attractive to smaller remitters and payment providers that lack extensive balance sheets.

To counter regulatory and integration objections, Ripple emphasises its licensing efforts and enterprise partnerships. The company points to licences obtained in various jurisdictions and tailored solutions for banks that require custody, compliance tooling and legal clarity.

On the other hand, Ripple’s RLUSD, a fiat-backed stablecoin for continuous settlement, blends blockchain efficiency with the trust and safeguards of traditional finance. Therefore, the debate hinges on trade-offs.

Banks valuing control and regulatory certainty may favor internal rails or tightly regulated stablecoins, while those pursuing efficiency and capital optimization could turn to ODL and other bridge-layer solutions. In markets with thin liquidity or costly remittances, access to intraday liquidity via a bridge asset can transform economics.

XRP vs Litecoin Rivalry Intensifies as Ripple CTO Calls PoW a “Flaw” The rivalry between XRP and Litecoin communities has escalated sharply after Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, entered the fray with pointed criticism of Litecoin’s consensus model. In a recent exchange on X, formerly Twitter, Schwartz took aim at Litecoin’s reliance on Proof-of-Work (PoW), arguing that its high energy consumption represents a fundamental weakness, not a strength.

Schwartz’s remarks came in response to claims from LTC advocate Jonny Litecoin who touted the resilience and decentralization of PoW as superior to alternatives like XRP’s consensus protocol. However, Ripple’s CTO dismissed the narrative, emphasizing that energy-intensive models are increasingly unsustainable in today’s regulatory and environmental climate.

By labeling PoW’s inefficiency, Schwartz reignited a long-standing debate over blockchain efficiency and sustainability. Litecoin, often dubbed the “silver to Bitcoin’s gold,” has maintained its identity as a secure, mineable cryptocurrency since its launch in 2011.

Proponents argue that its battle-tested PoW mechanism ensures robust security and decentralization, features that proof-of-stake or consensus-based systems may struggle to replicate. Yet, critics highlight the mounting costs of mining, both financial and environmental, at a time when global regulators are tightening scrutiny on energy-hungry digital assets.

XRP, by contrast, uses a consensus algorithm designed to validate transactions without mining. Supporters argue this enables faster settlement times, lower transaction costs, and a fraction of the energy usage compared to PoW networks.

Ripple has positioned XRP as an environmentally conscious alternative suited for cross-border payments and institutional adoption. Conclusion As the XRP vs.

Litecoin rivalry deepens, Schwartz’s critique highlights the growing divide between traditional PoW supporters and advocates of energy-efficient consensus models. On the other hand, the future of cross-border settlement will hinge on whether banks stick to the safety of internal rails and stablecoins or embrace Ripple’s faster and blended approach of ODL, licensing, and RLUSD.