SWIFT has long dominated global financial messaging. Now, it faces a technological reckoning. Rather than partnering with Ripple or building its own blockchain network from scratch, SWIFT chose a third path. It pursued a global shared ledger architecture built on Linea , an Ethereum-based Layer-2 blockchain infrastructure. The move signals that SWIFT recognizes the urgency of modernizing. The question is whether Linea can actually deliver what the system needs. Why Linea Falls Short as a Liquidity Tool Linea operates as a Layer-2 network. It aggregates transactions independently. It then sends that data to the Ethereum mainnet (Layer-1) for final verification. That verification process costs money. Every transmission carries a fee. CharuSan (@CharuSan83), a computer engineer and banking expert, addressed this directly, stating , ” Linea is not a liquidity tool.” The cost structure alone separates it from XRP, which settles transactions in 3-5 seconds at fractions of a cent with no routing dependency on a separate network. SWIFT’s use of Linea does not solve the liquidity problem. It adds infrastructure complexity without addressing the core need for fast, cost-effective value transfer at scale. The real issue for SWIFT is right here, SWIFT will either add XRP to its system as a "liquidity layer" to keep up with the modern world, or it will remain a simple messaging service, losing its financial authority and eventually disappearing. Instead of reaching an agreement… https://t.co/F01l3b1FHB — CharuSan XRP (@CharuSan83) May 24, 2026 Large-Scale Failures Lead to a Scaled-Down Protocol The Linea integration struggled under pressure. Large-scale transfer testing produced poor results. SWIFT’s response was to introduce a ‘Low-Value Payments” protocol, a system built for micro-payments and small commercial transfers. CharuSan called this outcome a “massive disappointment and failure.” A global financial messaging network that processes trillions of dollars annually introduced a protocol designed for small transactions. That outcome raises serious questions about the viability of the Linea-based approach for institutional use. Where XRP Fits Into This Picture CharuSan’s argument is straightforward. SWIFT must either add XRP as a liquidity layer or accept a diminished role in global finance. XRP already functions as a bridge currency , moving value across borders without pre-funded accounts, and does so at speed and scale. Linea routes through Ethereum, but XRP does not carry that dependency. The two are not comparable as liquidity solutions, and CharuSan makes that distinction clearly. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 SWIFT’s Position Going Forward SWIFT still processes the majority of international bank transfers. Its messaging infrastructure remains deeply embedded in global finance. However, the Linea experiment reveals the limits of grafting newer blockchain technology onto an older system without solving the fundamental liquidity challenge. CharuSan notes SWIFT’s longevity as a function of institutional inertia rather than technical superiority. The financial system has continued to use SWIFT not because it leads in technology, but because replacing it requires coordination among thousands of institutions. That coordination may now be happening without SWIFT as a major entity. 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 Banking Expert: SWIFT Will Either Add XRP to Its System or This Happens appeared first on Times Tabloid .
