Lewis Jackson wastes no time reframing the discussion. The most important question for XRP is not whether it becomes a global currency, nor whether banks will “adopt it,” but whether its role aligns with the architecture of the new financial system.
According to Jackson, the answer is clear:
XRP only works inside institutional systems if it becomes infrastructure — not money.
This is not a downgrade — it is the only regulatory pathway that allows XRP to operate alongside tokenized deposits, wholesale CBDCs, and stablecoin rails without violating monetary rules.
BIS PFMI Principle 9, Basel III liquidity standards, and every credible CBDC pilot point to the same structural truth:
settlement must occur in bank-issued money.
But conversion between siloed bank networks requires a neutral technical asset.
That is the category XRP must aim for.
Jackson grounds his thesis in the actual language of global settlement frameworks.
Across BIS PFMI, the Bank of England settlement rulebook, ISO 20022 messaging, SWIFT blockchain pilots, and Project Guardian’s tokenization tests, one requirement is repeated:
Where possible, settlement must be in central-bank or commercial-bank money — not public-chain tokens.
This aligns with the live systems now emerging:
These designs confirm that the money leg is shifting toward tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and wholesale CBDCs — not public tokens like XRP, ETH, or XLM.
Trying to force XRP into the settlement role, Jackson argues, is fighting the architecture itself.
Jackson makes a clean distinction:
XRP’s strengths — speed, liquidity design, deterministic finality, and its AMM roadmap — all fit the conversion role. This is also the role regulators describe under PFMI Annex F: a critical service provider inside a financial-market infrastructure.
In this model, XRP becomes the:
Jackson describes XRP as “the invisible engine beneath programmable finance,” routing value without becoming the settlement currency.
A major part of Jackson’s thesis centers on RLUSD, Ripple’s upcoming stablecoin.
RLUSD is designed to meet:
RLUSD is what banks can settle with.
XRP is what banks never need to hold — but still benefit from.
This structure lets Ripple embed XRP in settlement workflows without asking institutions to adopt it directly, finally solving the “bankers don’t want to hold XRP” paradox.
In Jackson’s words:
“RLUSD is the compliant surface layer; XRP is the conversion engine.”
Jackson outlines three requirements Ripple must satisfy before XRP can be recognized as critical settlement infrastructure:
Ripple has not yet published these documents publicly, but Jackson believes they are either in progress or already under review.
Jackson expands the analysis by evaluating potential competitors:
Each solves part of the problem — but none replace XRP’s combination of liquidity design, settlement finality, and AMM integration.
XRP is not inevitable, Jackson clarifies — but it is architecturally differentiated.
Jackson’s argument ends with a binary choice:
The classification decision will shape XRP’s utility for decades.
Jackson situates XRP within a broader ecosystem of assets forming the programmable financial stack:
XRP • Chainlink (LINK) • Quant (QNT)
Ethereum (ETH) • Ondo (ONDO) • OriginTrail (TRAC)
Fortress • BNY Mellon • Zodia • Metaco
RLUSD • USDC • tokenized deposits
XRP’s role strengthens when identity systems, AI-driven compliance layers, and tokenized liquidity buffers become standard.
To explore the full documentation behind Jackson’s thesis — including BIS PFMI frameworks, CBDC design patterns, and Ripple’s evolving liquidity strategy — watch the complete episode of The Macro.
Stay updated with Lewis Jackson Ventures for ongoing research into tokenized assets, interoperability crypto, CBDC settlement, and the emerging programmable financial system.
