Global payment systems still rely on infrastructure built decades ago. Banks continue to route funds through multiple intermediaries, creating delays, high costs, and operational risk. As financial institutions search for efficiency, past evaluations of blockchain-based payment rails such as Ripple are gaining renewed relevance.
That renewed attention followed a post by crypto researcher SMQKE on X, which referenced a World Economic Forum document examining Ripple’s technology. The post resurfaced institutional commentary that assessed Ripple’s protocol from a practical banking perspective rather than a speculative one. This context has renewed discussion about Ripple’s long-standing role in payment modernization.
World Economic Forum’s Early View on Ripple
The document highlighted by SMQKE originated from a 2015 World Economic Forum report focused on the future of financial services. In that report, the WEF evaluated distributed ledger technologies with the potential to improve interbank payments. It identified Ripple’s protocol as a viable system for real-time payment and settlement between banks.
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM DOCUMENT NAMES RIPPLE AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE RAIL TO TRADITIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS‼
“If usage of the Ripple protocol were to expand to other banks, it could be EASILY used for real-time payment and settlement BETWEEN these institutions with NO automated… pic.twitter.com/VISQFbBtHs
— SMQKE (@SMQKEDQG) January 19, 2026
The report emphasized that broader bank adoption could allow institutions to transact directly. This structure would remove the need for automated clearing houses and correspondent banks. The WEF framed Ripple as infrastructure capable of reducing friction across global payment flows.
Institutional Testing Through Fidor Bank
The World Economic Forum supported its analysis by referencing Fidor Bank’s internal use of Ripple’s protocol. According to the report, Fidor successfully tested the system for internal transfers. This example demonstrated that Ripple’s technology could function within regulated banking environments.
This case study strengthened the WEF’s assessment because it showed operational usage. It confirmed that blockchain-based settlement could integrate with existing banking systems without compromising compliance or oversight.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
Implications for Cross-Border Banking
The report outlined structural inefficiencies in correspondent banking. Traditional models depend on multiple intermediaries, pre-funded accounts, and delayed reconciliation. Ripple’s protocol offered a direct alternative that enabled real-time settlement and greater transparency.
These efficiency gains remain relevant today. Banks still face pressure to reduce costs and settlement times, especially in cross-border transactions. The WEF’s analysis suggested that technology, rather than regulation, drives many existing limitations.
Why the Assessment Still Matters Today
Although published in 2015, the WEF’s conclusions continue to resonate. Ripple has since expanded enterprise adoption and refined its payment solutions. Regulatory clarity has also improved across key markets.
The document’s significance lies in its source. The World Economic Forum evaluated Ripple before widespread crypto adoption and before today’s market narratives. That early institutional validation reinforces Ripple’s position as a payments-focused network designed to solve real banking challenges, not a concept built on speculation.