Digital Ascension Group chairman Jake Claver recently explained what it actually takes for $XRP to handle large institutional transactions.
In a post on X, Claver broke down how $XRP could function as a bridge currency between banks. He highlighted that price alone is not the key factor; liquidity may be the deciding piece.
Key Points
- $XRP can settle $50M bank transfers, but only if liquidity is deep enough to avoid major price swings.
- Low liquidity could make large $XRP transactions unstable, raising concerns about its reliability for institutions.
- Claver argues higher $XRP prices boost efficiency, but extreme price predictions still lack strong justification.
- Banks may favor stablecoins or in-house solutions over $XRP to avoid enriching Ripple and managing volatility.
Why Liquidity Matters More Than Hype
According to Claver, for $XRP to successfully settle a $50 million transaction between two major banks, the network must have enough liquidity to process the trade without causing sharp price swings.
In simple terms, if liquidity is too low, a transaction of that size could move the market significantly, making $XRP unreliable for institutional use.
At the moment, $XRP has a market cap of $83 billion. This implies the network cannot seamlessly handle an intentional settlement worth $100 billion. For this to happen, $XRP’s price would need to rise to around $10, giving it a $600 billion valuation for a successful attempt.
This reinforces the popular idea that $XRP’s price “needs to rise” to be liquid enough to support large-scale financial flows.
$XRP Role as a Bridge Currency
The concept of $XRP as a bridge asset has long been central to Ripple’s vision. The idea is that $XRP can act as an intermediary between two different fiat currencies, enabling fast and low-cost cross-border transfers.
Claver’s explanation builds on earlier arguments that $XRP becomes more efficient at higher valuations.
Last year, he argued that $XRP is “programmed” to reach $10,000 to handle trillion-dollar transactions more efficiently. He dismissed market cap concerns, claiming they are irrelevant to $XRP’s valuation.
He explained that as $XRP’s price rises, fewer tokens are needed to transfer large sums, boosting network utility.
While the logic holds, it still fails to justify extreme price predictions popular in the $XRP community and the aggressive timelines leaders like Claver attach.
$XRP vs Stablecoins
Meanwhile, recent discussions have also questioned whether $XRP will play a central role in banking at all. Some industry voices argue that stablecoins may be more practical for payments due to their fixed value.
Moreover, commentator Mason Versluis argues banks may resist boosting an asset that could make Ripple extremely wealthy. He notes that banks would closely assess $XRP’s token distribution and retail speculation before adopting it, regardless of its fast, low-cost payment utility.
In other words, if adopting $XRP could send its price soaring and significantly enrich Ripple, banks may instead opt for alternative solutions. This trend is already emerging, as major banks entering crypto are launching their own stablecoins and blockchains.
