A Reddit post has caused a debate within the XRP group after a user for two or three hours running the thesis of the XRP currency through both Claude and DeepSeek, led by a German economist setting 9 $ 9 in the middle of the token’s price.
What the AI got back was not encouraging. It was a series of design challenges.
RLUSD question
Banks hate volatility. The original case of XRP was as a bridge currency to transfer funds between two fiat pairs via a short token hop. But Ripple is now offering RLUSD, a stablecoin for the dollar that runs on its foundation.
“Ripple is pushing its stablecoin (RLUSD). Banks hate volatility. Why would they voluntarily risk the price of XRP for their transactions when they can use Ripple’s software to send cheap RLUSD?”
If banks can settle trades using Ripple’s stable-asset software, why would they willingly take the risk of XRP’s price? The article argued that this would remove the important issue of XRP’s institutional use and design, rather than Ripple’s intended use.
SWIFT is a Chainlink Alternative
AI produced a competing idea. SWIFT works for more than 11,000 organizations worldwide and is increasingly connecting to blockchains through internal Chainlink circuits rather than replacing existing rail. Analysts mentioned in the discussion put LINK’s five-year target at $100 to $150 from the current price of $9, with the mathematical argument that a move of 10 to 15x requires much less money than XRP to $9.
AI also showed that the main selling that was combined between $ 2.40 and $ 3.00 from long-term holders, which makes a clean exit difficult.
The article concluded by documenting these as two competing ideologies of the global economy, with the clear assumption that only one type will dominate. Ripple is developing rails and assets, and SWIFT is transforming through the integration of Chainlink and maintaining its existing infrastructure.
Trust CoinPedia:
CoinPedia has been providing accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our team of expert researchers and journalists, following strict Editorial guidelines based on EEAT (Effectiveness, Expertise, Validity, Trustworthiness). Each article is checked against a reputable site to ensure accuracy, visibility, and credibility. Our review process ensures an unbiased review when we develop exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates on all aspects of crypto & blockchain, from startups to industry executives.
Investment Disclaimer:
All opinions and information shared represent the author’s opinion on market conditions. Please do your own research before making any financial decisions. Neither the author nor the publisher is responsible for your financial decisions.
Offers and Promotions:
Sponsored content and affiliate links can be viewed on our website. Advertisements are clearly identifiable, and our content is not independent of our advertisers.
