Is Ripple Falling Behind? Regulated Finance Has Already Chosen the ‘SWIFT Messaging + Blockchain Settlement’ Model (Besu)

-

3-Point Summary

  • Global finance is shifting toward hybrid settlement models where SWIFT messaging and blockchain settlement coexist.
  • Hyperledger Besu represents the “regulated financial infrastructure” model, extending existing systems on-chain without replacing them.
  • The Ripple Network represents a “full payment network replacement” model, creating structural tension between extension and redesign approaches.
Ripple vs Besu Global Infrastructure Image

Besu extends regulated financial infrastructure on-chain, while Ripple aims to replace global payment networks entirely — creating a structural clash between extension and redesign models.

20‑Second Shorts Video (Updated August 5, 2026)

Ripple Is Losing Ground: Global Finance Is Moving to SWIFT + Ethereum (Besu) #BlockchainSettlement #EthereumBesu #RippleDebate

Besu vs Ripple Network: Regulated Financial Infrastructure vs Global Payment Replacement Models

As we explored in the previous posts, global finance is already undergoing a quiet but massive structural shift. Stablecoins and tokenized assets are becoming the basic units of payment infrastructure, BNP Paribas and other global banks are putting MMF shares directly on Ethereum, blurring the line between traditional finance and public blockchains. On top of that, KB Kookmin Bank’s choice of a “SWIFT for messaging + blockchain for settlement” model shows that international payment standards are no longer defined by a single network, but are being rebuilt as hybrid architectures composed of multiple layers.

This naturally leads to the next set of questions: Which blockchain layer will actually power regulated financial infrastructure? And what philosophical and technical differences exist between models that extend SWIFT and those that aim to replace it? At this point, the Ethereum ecosystem built on Hyperledger Besu and the Ripple Network are trying to solve the same problem from different directions, creating a structural clash between “regulated financial infrastructure” and “global payment replacement models.”

Wholesale payments, tokenized deposits, securities, CBDCs, and cross-border settlement are all parts of regulated financial infrastructure where stability, regulatory compliance, and compatibility with existing systems are non‑negotiable. This article focuses on how Hyperledger Besu and the Ripple Network design financial infrastructure from that perspective, and distills only the core ideas.

1) What is Besu? — An on‑chain extension model for regulated financial infrastructure

Hyperledger Besu is an enterprise Ethereum client designed to move traditional financial infrastructure such as wholesale CBDCs, tokenized deposits, securities, bonds, MMFs, and cross‑border payments on‑chain. The key idea is to keep existing financial systems in place while extending only the settlement layer on‑chain.

  • Permissioned + Public Hybrid: A permissioned network preserves regulatory compliance while connecting to public Ethereum to secure transparency and liquidity.
  • Regulation‑friendly design: Built‑in support for KYC/AML, role‑based access control, and audit logs makes it suitable for wholesale payments, CBDCs, securities, and deposits.
  • Natural integration with existing infrastructure: Compatible with international standards such as ISO 20022, extending rather than replacing existing systems.

In short, Besu is an on‑chain extension model that upgrades the infrastructure financial institutions already run, without forcing them to rip and replace their core systems.

2) What is the Ripple Network? — A replacement model that redesigns global payment infrastructure

The Ripple Network is a fully replacement‑style global payment model that processes messaging and settlement within a single network. Instead of extending existing SWIFT/RTGS systems, it aims to build an entirely new payment network.

  • Integrated messaging + settlement: Unlike SWIFT’s sequence of message → payment → confirmation, the Ripple Network handles the entire process in a single network call.
  • 3–5 second real‑time settlement: Cross‑border payments are completed in seconds, far faster than legacy systems.
  • New network learning curve: Institutions must adopt RippleNet clients or APIs instead of reusing existing SWIFT interfaces.
  • Regulatory fit varies by jurisdiction: Some countries have adopted it, while others still face regulatory uncertainty.

Ripple is not trying to extend existing financial infrastructure; it is pursuing a strategy to replace it.

3) Besu’s growth vs Ripple’s global payment redesign: a structural clash

Ripple has consistently pursued the goal of “redesigning the global payment network.” However, as Besu‑based regulated financial infrastructure grows, Ripple’s full replacement strategy faces structural constraints.

  • Besu’s direction: Maintain existing SWIFT, RTGS, and securities settlement systems, while modernizing back‑end settlement on‑chain and preserving regulatory compliance, auditability, and access control.
  • Ripple’s direction: Integrate messaging and settlement into a single network, redesigning SWIFT/RTGS themselves and requiring adoption of a new network.

Regulated financial institutions tend to prefer extension over replacement. Rather than completely overhauling systems that already run reliably, they choose to improve efficiency and transparency through on‑chain settlement.

As Besu gains traction, institutions increasingly reach the following conclusion:

Keeping existing systems and extending settlement on‑chain with Besu is sufficient.

Meanwhile, Ripple’s desired future looks like this:

Redesign the global payment network itself around RippleNet/XRP Ledger.

These two approaches are philosophically opposed: one extends existing infrastructure on‑chain, the other seeks to replace it entirely.

Conclusion: Extension strategy (Besu) vs replacement strategy (Ripple)

Besu represents a model that extends existing financial infrastructure on‑chain, while Ripple represents a model that aims to replace that infrastructure. Because regulated financial institutions prefer extension over full replacement, the more Besu grows, the less realistic Ripple’s full replacement strategy becomes in terms of adoption.

Ripple and Besu are two different axes shaping the future of financial infrastructure. Yet as regulated financial infrastructure is modernized around Besu, Ripple’s vision of a “complete redesign of the global payment network” runs into increasingly strong structural constraints.

Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.

If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.