Current Adoption - Honest Assessment
Learning Objectives
Cite actual ODL volume figures with appropriate context
Identify which payment corridors are actively using XRP
Name real institutions using XRP in production
Understand the MoneyGram story and its lessons
Form your own evidence-based view on adoption state
Search "XRP adoption" and you'll find two narratives:
The bull narrative:
"XRP is being adopted by hundreds of banks worldwide. Ripple's partnerships are transforming global payments. Mass adoption is imminent."
The bear narrative:
"XRP has no real adoption. Ripple pays companies to use it. The partnerships are just press releases. Nobody actually uses XRP."
Both narratives are wrong.
The reality: XRP has genuine adoption that processes real money. But that adoption is modest compared to global payment volumes and faces real obstacles to scaling. Let's examine the evidence.
- Number of transactions
- Dollar volume processed
- Growth rates (often impressive percentages)
- Corridor-specific data (sometimes)
- Ripple controls what they report and how
- Independent verification is limited
- "Growth" from a small base can be misleading
- Some volume may involve incentives or subsidies
Based on available data through late 2024:
Cumulative volume:
Ripple has reported processing billions of dollars through ODL since inception. This is real money moving through real systems.
Growth trajectory:
Year-over-year growth has been significant—often 100%+ in early years, moderating as the base grows.
Transaction counts:
Millions of transactions processed, with typical transaction sizes ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars.
Let's contextualize ODL volume:
Global cross-border payments: ~$150 trillion annually
Global remittances: ~$800 billion annually
ODL annual volume: Estimates suggest $10-30 billion range (varies by period and source)
If ODL = $20 billion annually
Global cross-border = $150 trillion
Market share = 0.013%
ODL $20B / Remittances $800B = 2.5%
The honest read:
ODL processes real volume. That volume is meaningful in absolute terms. But it's a tiny fraction of the total market. Growth is occurring from a small base.
Not all volume is equal:
Customers choosing ODL because it's better/cheaper
Sustainable without incentives
True product-market fit
Ripple provides financial incentives
Partners use ODL partly because Ripple subsidizes it
Sustainability uncertain if incentives end
The mix is unclear:
Ripple doesn't disclose what portion of volume is incentivized. Critics assume most is; advocates assume most is organic. The truth is probably mixed.
A "corridor" is a payment route between two regions/currencies. Example: US → Mexico (USD → MXN).
- An exchange with XRP/source currency liquidity
- An exchange with XRP/destination currency liquidity
- Regulatory approval in both jurisdictions
- Payment provider integration
- One of the largest and most liquid corridors
- Supported by Bitso (major Mexican exchange)
- Significant remittance volume
- Generally considered ODL's most successful corridor
- Major remittance destination
- Supported by Coins.ph and other partners
- Long-standing corridor
- Various routes through Singapore, Australia
- Growing but less established than Mexico/Philippines
- SBI-supported routes
- Regulatory friendliness in Japan helps
- UAE and others exploring
- Regulatory environment improving
- Limited volume currently
- Some presence but limited
- Regulatory challenges
- Infrastructure gaps
- Brazil and others in development
- Varied regulatory situations
- Massive remittance market
- Regulatory barriers to crypto
- Not an active ODL corridor
- Largest remittance receiving country
- Crypto regulation uncertain
- Not currently active
- No need for bridge currency (same currency)
- ODL not applicable
These gaps matter. Some of the world's largest payment corridors aren't ODL-enabled, limiting total addressable volume.
- Companies don't always publicize crypto usage
- "Partnership" doesn't mean active usage
- Volume commitments aren't disclosed
- Users may start and stop without announcement
- Ripple-acquired (majority stake) in 2021
- Payment infrastructure in Asia
- Genuine ODL integration
- Powers significant corridor volume
- Long-standing Ripple partner
- MoneyTap service in Japan
- Strategic investor in Ripple
- Real production usage
- Multiple smaller MTOs use ODL
- Often in specific corridors
- Names less recognizable than major banks
The narrative:
"Banks are adopting XRP for payments."
- Most ODL users are payment providers and fintechs, not banks
- RippleNet includes banks, but RippleNet ≠ XRP usage
- Direct bank-to-bank XRP settlement remains rare
- Banks using Ripple often use messaging/tracking, not XRP
Why this matters:
The bull thesis often assumes banks will adopt XRP en masse. Current evidence shows payment providers adopting, with banks still primarily on the sidelines for XRP specifically.
- Payment providers (not banks themselves)
- Focused on specific corridors
- Smaller to mid-sized institutions
- Often remittance-focused
- Major global banks using XRP
- Corporate treasury usage
- Correspondent banking replacement at scale
- Ripple invested $50 million
- MoneyGram would use ODL for cross-border flows
- High-profile validation of XRP use case
- MoneyGram processed ~10% of Mexico corridor through ODL
- Real volume, real cost savings reported
- Poster child for institutional XRP adoption
- SEC lawsuit created regulatory uncertainty
- MoneyGram couldn't risk association with disputed asset
- No resumption after Ripple's legal victories
- MoneyGram sold to private equity
- No return to ODL usage
- Ripple's largest public partnership ended
Regulatory risk is real:
Even working partnerships can be killed by legal uncertainty. The SEC case had real business consequences.
Partnerships aren't permanent:
Business relationships depend on circumstances. Assuming partnerships continue indefinitely is risky.
Validation and dependency:
MoneyGram validated ODL worked at scale—but also showed dependence on regulatory environment.
The positive take:
It worked technically. Cost savings were real. The failure was regulatory, not operational.
The cautionary take:
If your largest partner can disappear due to regulatory action, the business carries significant policy risk.
- Is volume growing, stable, or declining?
- Quarterly or annual growth rates
- Volume relative to incentive spending
- New corridors coming online
- Depth of liquidity in existing corridors
- Regulatory approvals in new markets
- Do partners continue using ODL?
- Or do they try it and stop?
- (This data is hard to find)
- What portion is sustainable?
- Are customers paying fair prices?
- Would they continue without subsidies?
- Blog posts, press releases
- Earnings-style updates (when provided)
- Conference presentations
- XRPL transaction volumes
- But: Not all on-chain volume is ODL
- Attribution is difficult
- Industry reports
- Analyst coverage
- Community research (verify carefully)
- When partners tout usage, it's more credible
- Silence can mean discontinued usage
- Announcements without follow-up
- Partners not mentioning Ripple/XRP
- Metrics that don't improve over time
- Heavy reliance on incentives
- Partners publicly praising outcomes
- New corridors going live
- Volume growth without proportional incentive growth
- Repeat/expanding partnerships
The technology functions:
ODL moves money across borders in seconds. It's not theoretical—it works in production.
Some corridors are real:
Mexico and Philippines have sustained volume. Real businesses use them for real customer payments.
Cost savings are documented:
Partners report 40-70% cost reductions in some cases. The economic case is demonstrated.
Regulatory picture is clearing:
Post-SEC case, at least US regulatory risk is reduced.
Scale remains limited:
Billions in volume sounds impressive until you compare to trillions in the market.
Bank adoption is minimal:
Payment providers yes, major banks not really.
Major corridors are blocked:
China, India not accessible. Regulatory barriers remain.
MoneyGram-style setbacks:
The biggest success story ended.
Optimistic view:
Current adoption is early-stage. Network effects build over time. As regulatory clarity improves and corridors expand, growth will accelerate.
Pessimistic view:
It's been over 8 years since ODL launched. If it were going to achieve scale, wouldn't it have by now? Stablecoins are winning.
Neutral view:
Growth is occurring but slowly. Whether it reaches meaningful scale is genuinely uncertain. The technology works; the adoption race is ongoing.
XRP has real adoption—it's not vaporware. But that adoption is modest relative to the global payments market and faces real obstacles to scaling. The technology works; the commercial traction is developing; the outcome is uncertain. This is an honest early-stage assessment, not a bullish or bearish spin.
ODL Volume: The total value of payments processed through On-Demand Liquidity, using XRP as a bridge.
Corridor: A payment route between two regions/currencies (e.g., US → Mexico).
Organic Volume: Transactions occurring because the product is genuinely preferred, without subsidies.
Incentivized Volume: Transactions supported by Ripple's financial incentives to partners.
MTOs (Money Transfer Operators): Companies specializing in remittance and money transfer services.
Current adoption is modest but real. But how big could this get? Lesson 12 examines The Addressable Market—the size of cross-border payments, remittances, and other markets XRP could serve. We'll explore realistic capture scenarios and avoid the trap of assuming huge markets guarantee success.
Lesson 11 Complete. Continue to Lesson 12: The Addressable Market - How Big Could This Be? →
Knowledge Check
Knowledge Check
Question 1 of 5Approximately what share of global cross-border payments does ODL represent?
Key Takeaways
ODL processes billions in real volume.
This is meaningful in absolute terms but tiny relative to the $150 trillion cross-border market.
Some corridors work well.
US-Mexico and US-Philippines have sustained activity with real partners.
Adoption is mostly payment providers, not banks.
The "banks using XRP" narrative oversimplifies reality.
MoneyGram's story is instructive.
It proved ODL works but also showed regulatory vulnerability.
The trajectory is uncertain.
Growth is occurring. Whether it leads to significant market share is genuinely unknown. ---