By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
Both XRP and Stellar face structural risks: banks can use their ledgers without holding the native tokens, and neither has proven sustained institutional demand for their tokens. The key to their success lies in achieving institutional mandates requiring native token holding by Q3 2025.
Risk: Banks using the ledgers without holding the native tokens, leading to hollow demand for the tokens even as volumes grow.
Opportunity: Achieving institutional mandates requiring native token holding by Q3 2025.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Ripple’s ODL platform processed more than $15 billion in cross-border payments in 2024, a 32% increase, and cumulative volume crossed $95 billion as of January 2026.
DTCC, which oversees $114 trillion in US capital market assets, chose Stellar as the first public blockchain to host its tokenized securities.
Stellar’s payment volume hit $5.5 billion in Q1 2026, a 72% annual increase, and XLM surged 28% on the DTCC announcement while the broader crypto market fell sharply the same day.
Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.
XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) and Stellar (CRYPTO: XLM) were both built to solve the same remittance problem. International payments are slow, expensive, and routed through a chain of correspondent banks that each add delays and take a cut.
Both networks settle transactions in seconds for fractions of a cent, and both have spent years trying to convince the financial system to use them. In 2026, Wall Street has finally weighed in on each, and the verdicts are different.
Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.
XRP Has the Volume and Institutional Depth
Ripple's On-Demand Liquidity service uses XRP as a bridge between two fiat currencies to settle cross-border payments in three to five seconds. The service processed over $15 billion in volume in 2024, a 32% annual increase. Over 300 financial institutions use RippleNet infrastructure, but only about 40% are actively settling in XRP. The rest use Ripple's messaging rails without any XRP exposure.
Cumulative Ripple Payments volume crossed $95 billion as of January 2026. The network now spans more than 70 currency corridors and covers an estimated 80% of major global remittance routes. The corridors generating most of that volume run through Japan, the Philippines, and Mexico, where legacy banking costs are high and demand for fast remittances is consistent.
Moreover, the CLARITY Act passed the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 and would permanently write XRP's commodity classification into federal law. The March 17 SEC-CFTC interpretive ruling already gave XRP commodity status, but an agency ruling can be reversed by the next administration, while a law cannot. But even with the volume, the corridors, and the regulatory clarity, XRP still has one unresolved problem.
Banks are using the XRP Ledger without necessarily buying the token itself. A good example was the pilot on May 6, where JPMorgan, Mastercard, Ondo, and Ripple cleared a cross-border tokenized U.S. Treasury trade on the XRP Ledger in under five seconds. The pilot proved the ledger works for institutional settlement at scale. But the settlement ran through RLUSD, Ripple's dollar stablecoin, while XRP only covered minimal network fees of around $0.00001 per transaction.
RLUSD adoption strengthens Ripple's business and proves the XRPL's technical capacity, but it does not directly create XRP demand the way ODL does. As long as banks can use the ledger without holding the token, ledger activity and XRP price stay disconnected.
Stellar Just Got Its Biggest Institutional Endorsement
Stellar processed $5.5 billion in payment volume in Q1 2026, a 72% increase compared to the same period last year. Stellar's tokenized real-world asset value also grew from $796 million at the end of 2025 to over $2 billion by mid-April. XLM received the same March 17 SEC-CFTC commodity classification that covered Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP, ending the legal uncertainty that had kept many institutional funds on the sidelines.
On May 27, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and the Stellar Development Foundation announced plans to enable tokenization of DTC-custodied assets on the Stellar network, with availability targeted for the first half of 2027.
The initiative will initially focus on highly liquid assets, including Russell 1000 equities, major index ETFs, and US Treasuries. DTCC oversees more than $114 trillion in assets across US capital markets, and this marks the first time DTC-custodied securities will live on a public blockchain.
XLM surged 28% across the trading day following the announcement. The initial reaction was around 8% before the rally extended further. The broader crypto market fell sharply that same day.
However, the DTCC patent issued in May 2025 had already identified both the XRP Ledger and Stellar among compatible blockchain networks for its cross-ledger framework. According to the patent, XRP is designed for large-scale institutional settlement, while Stellar is designed for low-cost transactions, fiat-to-blockchain conversions, and stablecoins.
XRP vs. XLM: Which One Is Actually Winning?
XRP is winning the commercial cross-border payments race on volume and institutional depth right now, while Stellar is winning the tokenized securities infrastructure race after securing the biggest single institutional endorsement of 2026.
Ripple's ODL network has real payment volume growing at 30 to 40% annually with direct XRP demand built into every transaction. Stellar's DTCC partnership is a landmark, but production testing does not begin until July, and broader availability is not targeted until 2027. So, the token demand implications are still months away.
The more important question for investors is which catalyst arrives first. XRP has the CLARITY Act moving through the full Senate, ETFs with $1.41 billion in cumulative inflows, and payment volume that generates direct token demand today.
Stellar has the DTCC partnership, which is the biggest long-term market infrastructure endorsement any of these tokens has received. But the network does not yet have the institutional layers in place that would turn a one-off rally into a sustained price move. If Stellar's July 2026 production testing runs smoothly and the October commercial launch proceeds on schedule, the comparison shifts significantly before year-end.
Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"XRP has real token demand today but faces structural headwinds (banks bypassing the token), while Stellar has massive optionality but zero production proof and a 18-month execution risk before any actual asset tokenization goes live."
The article frames this as a two-horse race, but conflates two entirely different value propositions. XRP has real, growing payment volume ($15B in 2024, 32% YoY) with direct token utility—every transaction burns XRP. Stellar's DTCC deal is infrastructure theater: it's a *framework agreement* for July 2026 testing, not revenue. The article doesn't ask the hard question: why would DTCC choose Stellar over XRP Ledger when the May 2025 patent explicitly lists both? The DTCC announcement moved XLM 28% on *announcement*, not adoption. That's speculative premium, not fundamental demand. XRP's real risk isn't Stellar—it's that banks keep using XRPL without buying XRP (the RLUSD pilot proves this). Stellar's real risk is execution: July testing could reveal technical or regulatory friction.
XRP's payment volume means nothing if it's not translating to token scarcity or burn; the article admits 60% of RippleNet users don't settle in XRP at all. Stellar's DTCC endorsement, even if delayed, represents $114 trillion of addressable market infrastructure—XRP's ODL corridors are remittance lanes, not capital markets.
"XRP's reported payment volume overstates direct token demand because most RippleNet activity bypasses XRP holdings."
The article frames XRP as the volume leader and Stellar as the tokenized-asset winner, yet both face the same structural limit: banks can use their ledgers without holding the native token. XRP's $15B 2024 ODL figure and 70+ corridors look strong, but 60% of RippleNet activity avoids XRP entirely via messaging or RLUSD. Stellar's DTCC deal targets 2027 rollout and starts with testing only in July; any delay or scope reduction would erase the 28% pop. Regulatory clarity via the CLARITY Act helps XRP today, but neither network has proven sustained token demand at institutional scale against faster or cheaper competitors.
The DTCC partnership could compress timelines dramatically once production testing begins, and XRP's commodity status plus ETF inflows could drive token demand faster than the article's 2027 horizon suggests.
"Institutional adoption of blockchain rails does not automatically translate to price appreciation for native tokens if stablecoins are used for settlement."
The market is conflating 'ledger utility' with 'token value accrual.' Ripple’s ODL volume is impressive, but the shift toward RLUSD stablecoin settlement confirms that institutions prefer low-volatility rails over volatile native assets like XRP. While the DTCC partnership is a massive validation for Stellar, it is a long-term infrastructure play, not an immediate liquidity driver. Investors are currently chasing headlines, but the real risk is that both networks become 'plumbing' providers where the value accrues to the financial institutions, not the underlying token holders. Until we see institutional mandates requiring native token holding for collateral or settlement, these assets remain high-beta proxies for crypto sentiment rather than fundamental value plays.
If the CLARITY Act passes, it could force a massive institutional re-allocation into XRP as a 'legal' commodity, effectively decoupling it from broader market volatility.
"Near-term catalysts exist, but durable token demand and sustained price moves depend on actual bank adoption and enduring regulatory clarity, making the outcome uncertain and the timeline prolonged."
The article paints a dual narrative: XRP leads in cross-border volume today; Stellar earns a landmark DTCC endorsement for tokenized securities. Yet the biggest risk is structural rather than catalytic: banks can use the rails without holding XRP, so demand for the token may remain hollow even as volumes grow. RLUSD adoption can sustain network activity without XRP price strength, and Stellar’s DTCC plan is a multi-year, complex rollout with onboarding, regulatory, and custody hurdles. Regulatory clarity helps both chains, but timelines are long and execution risk high; incumbents and existing rails could erode incremental benefits if integration effort proves costly or slow.
The strongest counter is that real-world traction could accelerate faster than the article implies: ODL and RLUSD usage, plus a controlled DTCC rollout on Stellar, can create a durable revenue and demand inflection well before broad regulatory certainty fully lands.
"Non-settlement of XRP may signal rational infrastructure design, not weakness—but neither network has proven institutions *must* hold native tokens at scale."
Everyone's circling the same structural trap—ledger ≠ token value—but nobody's asked why XRP's 60% non-settlement rate *might* be rational. If banks use XRPL for messaging/routing but settle via RLUSD or fiat, XRP becomes a liquidity layer, not a settlement asset. That's actually *lower* risk than if they demanded native token holding. Stellar faces the inverse: DTCC validation without proof that tokenized securities demand exceeds existing infrastructure. The real tell: which network sees *sustained* institutional custody mandates by Q3 2025?
"XRP's liquidity-layer role raises velocity risks that undermine burn-driven scarcity more than acknowledged."
Claude overlooks that treating XRP as a pure liquidity layer without settlement mandates increases velocity, eroding scarcity from burns despite $15B volume. This amplifies Gemini's RLUSD risk for both tokens, as DTCC's 2027 timeline leaves Stellar exposed to faster competitors like Ethereum L2s capturing tokenized flows first. Sustained mandates remain the unpriced variable.
"Institutional adoption is driven by regulatory compliance and existing banking integration, not raw transaction speed or L2 technical superiority."
Grok, you're missing the 'moat' of existing liquidity. Ethereum L2s might be faster, but they lack the regulatory integration and established banking corridors that Ripple and Stellar have spent years building. The risk isn't technical competition; it's the 'walled garden' problem. If DTCC standardizes on Stellar, they aren't looking for the fastest chain, they are looking for the most compliant one. The real threat is not L2s, but the central banks building their own sovereign CBDC rails.
"The key risk is regulatory and custody moats that monetize the infrastructure rather than token demand; DTCC adoption could lock in revenue while tokens fail to appreciate absent mandates or burn economics."
Grok raises a valid point about DTCC timing vs faster chains, but the bigger risk is the regulatory/custody moat that could trap value in rails rather than tokens. If DTCC's Stellar adoption locks in compliant custody, reporting, and settlement workflows, institutions may pay for infrastructure while XRP/XLM tokens drift with crypto sentiment. In that world, token upside hinges on mandatory holdings or burn economics that regulators won't enable quickly.
Both XRP and Stellar face structural risks: banks can use their ledgers without holding the native tokens, and neither has proven sustained institutional demand for their tokens. The key to their success lies in achieving institutional mandates requiring native token holding by Q3 2025.
Achieving institutional mandates requiring native token holding by Q3 2025.
Banks using the ledgers without holding the native tokens, leading to hollow demand for the tokens even as volumes grow.