Stellar vs RippleNet for Fiat Off-Ramps

Public, permissionless blockchain with a vibrant ecosystem of tools (e.g., Stellar SDKs, Horizon API). This matters for projects needing to build custom, low-cost payment rails without requiring enterprise sales approval. Ideal for startups and fintechs integrating direct fiat on/off-ramps.

Sub-cent transaction fees (avg. ~$0.00001) and built-in decentralized exchange (DEX) for asset conversion. This matters for high-volume, micro-transaction use cases like remittances and payroll, where fee predictability is critical for business models.

Licensed, regulated network (e.g., MPI license in Singapore) with deep, pre-negotiated liquidity pools via On-Demand Liquidity (ODL). This matters for large financial institutions (e.g., banks, MTOs) requiring strict KYC/AML adherence and guaranteed settlement volumes for cross-border treasury flows.

3-5 second finality for high-value settlements using the XRP Ledger. This matters for corporate treasury and B2B payments where minimizing capital lock-up and counterparty risk is a primary concern, outweighing pure transaction cost.

Sub-penny transaction fees: ~$0.000001 per operation. This matters for high-volume, low-value remittances where fee sensitivity is paramount. The open, permissionless network allows any entity to become an anchor (fiat gateway), fostering competition and lower FX spreads for end-users.

Decentralized anchor model can lead to fragmented liquidity pools. Users must trust individual anchors for fiat issuance and redemption, which can create inconsistent rates and availability across different corridors (e.g., USD to PHP vs. USD to MXN). This matters if you need guaranteed, deep liquidity for large, predictable flows.

On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) uses XRP as a bridge asset with pre-funded accounts at regulated partners. This provides predictable, deep liquidity and streamlined compliance (Travel Rule, KYC) through Ripple's curated network of 100+ financial institutions. This matters for enterprise treasury operations moving millions with regulatory certainty.

Permissioned, curated network controlled by Ripple Labs. Access and pricing are negotiated, creating potential vendor lock-in and higher barriers to entry. Settlement fees, while lower than SWIFT, are not publicly transparent and can be higher than Stellar's open-market model. This matters for startups or projects seeking sovereign, non-custodial infrastructure.

Deep banking integration: Direct connections to 100+ financial institutions (e.g., SBI Holdings, Santander). This matters for high-volume, B2B corridors where pre-funded nostro/vostro accounts are required for settlement.

XRP as a bridge asset: Clear (though contested) regulatory stance from the SEC lawsuit provides a defined, albeit risky, framework. This matters for institutions that prioritize defined legal parameters over decentralization.

Open-source protocol & low fees: Public network with ~$0.00001 transaction costs and an SDK-first approach. This matters for startups and fintechs (e.g., MoneyGram Access) building agile, low-cost retail remittance products.

Integrated on/off-ramps: Network of 50+ regulated anchors (e.g., Circle USDC, Tempo, Vibrant) providing direct fiat rails. This matters for global reach needing multiple currency endpoints without negotiating bilateral agreements.

Permissioned access: Requires formal onboarding with Ripple, limiting speed and control. This is a drawback for projects wanting to launch quickly or avoid vendor lock-in with a single entity.

Smaller institutional footprint: While anchors provide access, deep liquidity for large (>$1M) wholesale transactions is less established than Ripple's bank network. This is a drawback for institutional FX desks moving nine-figure volumes.