Software engineer Vincent Van Code shared his perspective on the structural challenges facing modern banking, emphasizing that the majority of global financial institutions still rely on technology dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. He noted that the continued dominance of SWIFT, a messaging system launched in 1977, is not simply a matter of preference but rather a reflection of the outdated infrastructure underpinning the financial sector. According to Vincent, most major banks operate on IBM z/OS mainframes and decades-old COBOL-based systems, which remain at the core of their daily operations. Van Code pointed out that large vendors, including FIS, Fiserv, and Jack Henry, maintain control over more than 70 percent of U.S. core banking systems. While these platforms are capable of processing billions of dollars in transactions every day, they are characterized by rigidity, high maintenance costs, and entrenched silos. Attempting to replace them is viewed as extremely risky, with core system overhauls typically requiring between five and seven years and involving expenditures in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Most Banks Are Running on 1970s and 1980s Technology—No Wonder SWIFT Hasn’t Been Replaced So why hasn’t Ripple been adopted yet? Why is SWIFT’s market share so protected? Behind polished banking apps, the global financial system runs on mainframes and COBOL code from the… — Vincent Van Code (@vincent_vancode) September 2, 2025 The Role of SWIFT in Cross-Border Payments In this context, SWIFT has maintained its position as the standard for cross-border payments because it is already universally adopted within the banking sector. Van Code stated that while many banks present polished digital applications to their customers, their back-end systems are still rooted in outdated code. Instead of replacing core systems, institutions generally rely on layering APIs, middleware, and digital interfaces over their legacy frameworks. This approach allows them to continue using SWIFT as the most stable and cost-effective option available. Even enhancements such as SWIFT GPI , which promise faster and more transparent payments, are described by Van Code as temporary fixes rather than a fundamental transformation of the infrastructure. In his view, these updates are patches on a nearly fifty-year-old foundation that continues to dominate due to its universality and entrenched presence in global finance. Ripple as an Alternative Model Van Code contrasted SWIFT’s traditional approach with Ripple’s modern offering. He explained that Ripple represents a fundamentally different model, one that provides instant settlement, transparency, and the ability to free up trillions in trapped liquidity through its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) product. The blockchain-based transparency offered by Ripple reduces reconciliation costs and enables real-time traceability. Furthermore, Ripple has built a regulatory presence across multiple jurisdictions, reinforcing its position as a serious contender in the payments space. Despite these strengths, Van Code highlighted the complexity of adoption. Ripple would need to integrate with thousands of outdated banking cores, navigate an inconsistent regulatory landscape, and overcome skepticism within a highly risk-averse industry. While XRP’s liquidity continues to grow, he added that perceptions surrounding the asset also remain an obstacle to broader adoption. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 The Road Ahead for Ripple and Global Finance According to Van Code, SWIFT’s ubiquity remains its strongest advantage, as the network effect of its universal adoption continues to shield it from replacement. Breaking this barrier, he argued, will not happen quickly. Instead, Ripple’s best path forward may lie in acting as a bridge technology, complementing SWIFT while gradually proving its resilience and capabilities. He concluded by stating that the technology behind Ripple is ready to support global finance. Still, the critical question is whether banks are prepared to transition from systems that have been in place for half a century. In his assessment, the banking industry’s reluctance to overhaul its core technology remains the central obstacle to meaningful adoption of new payment infrastructures, such as Ripple. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Why SWIFT Hasn’t Been Replaced and Ripple (XRP) Hasn’t Been Adopted Yet appeared first on Times Tabloid .
