Here's the thing about institutional stablecoins that nobody's talking about—they don't play nice with each other. Think about it: JPMorgan isn't gonna touch Bank of America's stablecoin. Citi wants their own. Every major bank's building their own walled garden.
So what happens when these institutions need to actually transact? You hit a wall. That's where the intermediary layer becomes critical. XRP's being positioned exactly for this—a neutral bridge that lets competing stablecoins move between systems without forcing anyone to adopt a rival's token.
RLUSD fits into this puzzle too. It's not about replacing institutional coins. It's about creating the rails that make them all work together when banks need cross-border settlements or interbank liquidity.
The financial system's scaling problem isn't just about speed anymore. It's about making fragmented stablecoin ecosystems actually function as a unified network. And that requires something none of these banks want to build themselves—shared infrastructure they can all use without giving up control.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
UnruggableChad
· 9h ago
Damn, the banks are acting independently, that's the real problem... XRP serving as an intermediary is actually something impressive.
View OriginalReply0
ContractCollector
· 12-07 12:58
The situation where banks act independently is bound to collapse sooner or later... XRP’s neutral position is indeed quite interesting, but the key is still who will actually buy in.
View OriginalReply0
SandwichHunter
· 12-07 12:58
Banks have been acting independently for a long time; XRP and RLUSD are just intermediaries.
View OriginalReply0
MidnightSnapHunter
· 12-07 12:56
It's long been obvious that banks each do their own thing. The logic of using XRP as an intermediary actually makes some sense.
View OriginalReply0
SmartContractDiver
· 12-07 12:39
Banks each doing their own thing is the same old trick, and in the end, it's the users who suffer... I think the idea of using XRP as a bridge layer is reliable.
This is just like in real life—nobody wants others to make money, so a third party is needed to mediate conflicts.
The shared infrastructure that RLUSD is building really does solve real problems.
Wait, isn't this what we called interoperability a few years ago? Why is it only now getting attention?
View OriginalReply0
ZenChainWalker
· 12-07 12:35
Banks are acting independently, which is indeed an awkward situation; it takes a neutral bridge to connect them.
Here's the thing about institutional stablecoins that nobody's talking about—they don't play nice with each other. Think about it: JPMorgan isn't gonna touch Bank of America's stablecoin. Citi wants their own. Every major bank's building their own walled garden.
So what happens when these institutions need to actually transact? You hit a wall. That's where the intermediary layer becomes critical. XRP's being positioned exactly for this—a neutral bridge that lets competing stablecoins move between systems without forcing anyone to adopt a rival's token.
RLUSD fits into this puzzle too. It's not about replacing institutional coins. It's about creating the rails that make them all work together when banks need cross-border settlements or interbank liquidity.
The financial system's scaling problem isn't just about speed anymore. It's about making fragmented stablecoin ecosystems actually function as a unified network. And that requires something none of these banks want to build themselves—shared infrastructure they can all use without giving up control.