SWIFT’s Legacy Meets CIPS’s Ambition: A New Financial Era
Beyond SWIFT: China’s Vision for a Multipolar Payment World
TL;DR:
SWIFT dominates global finance with a 50-year legacy, connecting 11,200+ institutions and handling $150 trillion annually, but its U.S. influence makes it vulnerable to sanctions.
CIPS, launched in 2015 by China, processed $19 trillion in 2024, focusing on RMB transactions and offering a modern, sanctions-resistant alternative tied to the Digital Silk Road.
SWIFT excels in reach and reliability, yet struggles with high costs and outdated tech; CIPS offers low fees and blockchain potential but lacks scale and independence.
CIPS’s growth (50% yearly) and BRI alignment suggest regional strength by 2030, though SWIFT’s network effect and dollar dominance limit CIPS’s global rivalry.
The financial order is fragmenting, with CIPS signaling China’s intent to challenge Western control, though full rivalry depends on yuan liberalization and technical autonomy.
Introduction
The global financial landscape stands on the precipice of transformation, where the once-unassailable dominance of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) faces a burgeoning challenge from China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). Picture a future where cross-border transactions, the lifeblood of international trade and investment, no longer pulse exclusively through a Western-centric network headquartered in Belgium but are instead bifurcated between competing systems—one tethered to the U.S.-led financial order, the other an instrument of China’s ambitious Digital Silk Road. Launched as a cornerstone of Beijing’s broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), CIPS is not merely a technical platform but a geopolitical statement, designed to erode the West’s grip on global finance by offering a lifeline to nations bristling under the threat of U.S. sanctions. As of April 2025, this shift is no longer theoretical; it’s measurable in the growing transaction volumes and expanding membership of CIPS, prompting a deeper examination of its trajectory against SWIFT’s entrenched legacy. This exploration delves into the technical underpinnings, historical evolution, and strategic implications of both systems, culminating in a prognosis of whether CIPS can ascend to rival SWIFT in the decades ahead, amid a world increasingly fractured by economic nationalism and technological divergence.
SWIFT’s story begins in 1973, when a consortium of 239 banks from 15 countries, predominantly Western, established a cooperative to replace the inefficient, error-prone telex systems that plagued international payments. Headquartered in La Hulpe, Belgium, and governed under Belgian law, SWIFT introduced a standardized messaging protocol—relying on the ISO 20022 standard by the 2020s—that enabled secure, reliable communication between financial institutions worldwide. By April 2025, it connects over 11,200 banks, securities firms, and corporations across 208 countries, processing an estimated 44 million FIN messages daily, according to the latest SWIFT Traffic Insights report. Its technical architecture leverages a distributed network of data centers (in the U.S., Netherlands, and Switzerland), employing FIN MT (Message Type) protocols for instructions like MT103 for single customer credit transfers, and integrates with clearing systems like CHIPS and TARGET2 for settlement. This infrastructure, while aging, supports a staggering $150 trillion in annual cross-border flows, dwarfing competitors due to its near-universal adoption and the U.S. dollar’s 88% share of global trade invoicing, as reported by the Bank for International Settlements in 2024. Yet, SWIFT’s strength is also its vulnerability: its reliance on U.S.-based data centers and susceptibility to Washington’s extraterritorial influence—evidenced by the 2022 disconnection of Russian banks—expose it to geopolitical weaponization, a flaw CIPS seeks to exploit.
In contrast, CIPS emerged in 2015 under the stewardship of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), a state-driven initiative to internationalize the renminbi (RMB) and anchor China’s financial influence within its BRI framework. Initially a modest system with 19 direct participants, it has scaled to 1,631 institutions across 112 countries by early 2025, per the PBOC’s latest disclosures. Unlike SWIFT, which is a messaging network agnostic to currency, CIPS is a hybrid platform that combines messaging with real-time gross settlement (RTGS) for RMB-denominated transactions, using the CIPS Standard Transceiver for connectivity and ISO 20022-compliant formats. Its technical edge lies in its modern design: operating 24/7 since Phase 2’s rollout in 2018, it supports Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) and Payment Versus Payment (PVP) mechanisms, reducing counterparty risk in securities and forex trades. In 2024, CIPS processed RMB 135 trillion ($19 trillion), a 50% jump from 2022, yet this remains a sliver of global flows, constrained by the yuan’s 4.3% share in international payments, as noted by the SWIFT RMB Tracker. Critically, over 80% of its transactions still rely on SWIFT’s messaging backbone, a dependency that undermines its autonomy and highlights its nascent status.
The technical and strategic merits of SWIFT and CIPS reveal a stark contrast in their operational paradigms. SWIFT’s universality is its triumph, with a latency of mere seconds for message transmission across its encrypted network, underpinned by Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 and a proprietary FIN protocol stack that ensures interoperability with legacy systems. Its cooperative governance shields it from overt state control, yet this comes at the cost of rigidity; upgrades to real-time settlement or blockchain integration lag behind fintech innovators, with SWIFT’s gpi (Global Payments Innovation) initiative only partially bridging the gap by 2025, achieving 92% of payments within 24 hours. Conversely, CIPS boasts a state-of-the-art architecture, integrating with China’s Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) trials and offering lower fees—averaging 0.01% per transaction versus SWIFT’s 0.05%-0.1%, per a 2024 Asian Development Bank study. However, its centralized control by the PBOC raises red flags for nations wary of Beijing’s oversight, and its focus on RMB limits its appeal in a dollar-dominated world. Where SWIFT falters under sanctions pressure, CIPS thrives as a shield, yet its smaller footprint and technical reliance on SWIFT hamstring its global aspirations.
Looking to the horizon, CIPS’s potential to rival SWIFT hinges on a confluence of economic, technological, and geopolitical currents. By 2030, analysts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics project CIPS could capture 10% of global payment volumes if China liberalizes its capital account and boosts the yuan’s convertibility, a shift hinted at in the PBOC’s 2025 Five-Year Plan. Its integration with blockchain and the e-CNY could slash settlement times to under a minute, outpacing SWIFT’s gpi, while BRI nations—representing 30% of global GDP—offer a captive market. Yet, SWIFT’s network effects are formidable: banks face switching costs of $10-20 million to adopt CIPS, per a 2024 Deloitte report, and the dollar’s inertia as a reserve currency remains unassailable absent a global financial crisis. Geopolitical mistrust of China, amplified by tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea, further dims CIPS’s allure for Western-aligned states. Thus, while CIPS may dominate RMB-centric trade corridors by 2035, supplanting SWIFT globally requires a seismic reordering of financial power—one that, as of April 2025, remains a distant prospect.
History and Dominance of SWIFT
The inception of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) in 1973 marked a pivotal moment in global finance, born from a collaboration of 239 banks across 15 predominantly Western nations, including the United States, key European Union members, and G7 countries. Headquartered in La Hulpe, Belgium, SWIFT emerged as a response to the inefficiencies of telex-based communication, which suffered from slow transmission speeds (averaging 110 baud) and lacked standardized formats, often leading to costly errors in cross-border payments. The system introduced a pioneering network that utilized a proprietary messaging framework, initially based on the FIN protocol, to securely transmit payment instructions between banks. By leveraging leased lines and early packet-switching technology, SWIFT reduced processing times from days to hours, laying the groundwork for its evolution into a cornerstone of international finance. Its cooperative structure, governed under Belgian law, aimed to ensure operational impartiality, though its reliance on U.S. technological infrastructure—such as IBM mainframes in its Virginia data center—introduced subtle but significant Western influence from the outset.
Over the subsequent five decades, SWIFT’s expansion has been nothing short of remarkable, transforming it into the linchpin of the global financial ecosystem. By April 2025, the network links over 11,200 institutions—including commercial banks, central banks, and securities depositories—spanning 208 countries and territories, according to SWIFT’s own operational statistics. This growth was fueled by its adoption of the ISO 20022 messaging standard in 2023, which enhanced data richness with structured fields like Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) and Purpose Codes, enabling more precise tracking of transactions across jurisdictions. The system’s technical architecture now relies on a trio of high-availability data centers (in the U.S., Netherlands, and Switzerland), each running redundant IBM z16 servers with z/OS operating systems, achieving 99.999% uptime. These centers process an average of 44.7 million messages daily, with peak loads reaching 50 million during volatile market periods, as reported in SWIFT’s 2024 Annual Review. This scalability has cemented SWIFT’s role as the de facto standard for interbank communication, supporting everything from trade finance to foreign exchange netting.
SWIFT’s dominance in the realm of international payments is quantifiable in its sheer scope and influence, handling over 80% of global interbank messaging traffic for cross-border transactions as of early 2025. This translates to facilitating approximately $150 trillion in annual payment flows, a figure derived from its integration with clearing systems like the U.S.’s CHIPS (which processed $1.9 trillion daily in 2024) and Europe’s TARGET2 (handling €2.5 trillion daily), according to the European Central Bank’s latest data. The system’s messaging protocols, such as MT202 COV for interbank transfers with cover payments, ensure compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations, embedding mandatory fields for originator and beneficiary details. Despite its technical prowess, SWIFT’s perceived neutrality—rooted in its Belgian legal framework—has been tested by U.S.-driven sanctions, notably the 2022 exclusion of Russian banks, which relied on SWIFT for 70% of their external trade settlements. This incident underscored how Western powers, particularly the U.S., can leverage SWIFT’s infrastructure to enforce geopolitical agendas, a dynamic that has fueled interest in alternatives.
The significance of SWIFT’s preeminence extends beyond mere numbers, reflecting the enduring architecture of the post-World War II financial order dominated by the U.S. dollar and Western institutions. The dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency—accounting for 59% of global forex reserves in 2024, per the International Monetary Fund—amplifies SWIFT’s utility, as most transactions it facilitates are denominated in USD, necessitating access to U.S. correspondent banking networks. Technologically, SWIFT has adapted to modern demands with initiatives like the Global Payments Innovation (gpi), launched in 2017 and expanded by 2025 to cover 93% of its traffic, reducing end-to-end payment times to under 15 minutes for 50% of transactions via real-time tracking and pre-validation APIs. However, its legacy infrastructure, built on 1970s-era X.25 networking protocols before transitioning to IP-based systems in the 2000s, struggles to match the speed and cost-efficiency of newer fintech solutions, exposing vulnerabilities that competitors like China’s CIPS aim to exploit.
This historical and technical dominance of SWIFT is not merely a function of its operational success but a mirror to the geopolitical realities of the 20th and early 21st centuries, where Western financial hegemony set the rules of global trade. Its ability to process high-value payments—like the $10 billion daily flows between U.S. and EU banks—relies on a robust security framework, including AES-256 encryption and biannual penetration testing mandated by its Customer Security Programme (CSP), last updated in 2024. Yet, as geopolitical fault lines deepen, particularly with the rise of economic blocs led by China and its allies, SWIFT’s Western alignment has become a double-edged sword. The system’s exclusionary power, wielded against nations like Iran in 2012 and Russia in 2022, has spurred a search for alternatives that prioritize sovereignty over interoperability, setting the stage for a potential reconfiguration of global financial networks.
History and Limited Use of CIPS
The Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) traces its origins to a strategic move by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) in 2015, when it was launched to bolster the international stature of the Chinese yuan (RMB) and enhance the efficiency of cross-border transactions in that currency. Conceived as a linchpin of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its broader Digital Silk Road ambitions, CIPS aimed to create a financial infrastructure that could rival Western-dominated systems by providing a seamless, onshore clearing and settlement mechanism for RMB payments. The PBOC, leveraging its authority over China’s monetary policy, positioned CIPS as a counterweight to the limitations imposed by offshore clearing banks in hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, which had previously relied on slower, intermediary-dependent processes. By April 2025, this vision has matured into a system that not only supports China’s trade expansion but also serves as a geopolitical tool, offering nations an alternative to the U.S.-centric financial order amid rising sanctions pressures.
The development of CIPS unfolded in distinct phases, each marked by technical and operational advancements that broadened its reach and capabilities. Phase 1, initiated on October 8, 2015, began modestly with 19 direct participants—mostly major Chinese banks—and 176 indirect participants spanning 50 countries, utilizing a basic real-time gross settlement (RTGS) framework built on the ISO 20022 messaging standard. This phase laid the foundation for direct RMB clearing, cutting through the inefficiencies of correspondent banking models. By 2018, Phase 2 had fully activated, introducing 24/7 processing capabilities, a significant leap from the initial 9:00-20:00 window, and incorporating sophisticated settlement mechanisms like Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) for securities trades and Payment Versus Payment (PVP) for forex transactions. These enhancements, supported by the CIPS Standard Transceiver software, reduced latency to milliseconds and expanded the network to 1,427 institutions across 109 countries by 2022. Transaction volumes surged, with 2023 data showing RMB 123 trillion ($17 trillion) processed, reflecting a 27% year-on-year increase, though this growth still pales against the global scale of established networks.
As of April 2025, CIPS’s current scale reveals both its progress and its limitations within the global financial ecosystem. The system now connects approximately 1,600 participants—168 direct and 1,432 indirect—across 112 countries, according to the latest figures from the CIPS Co., Ltd. operational dashboard. Direct participants, such as Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and international players like HSBC, maintain accounts with the PBOC and interface via dedicated fiber-optic lines, ensuring sub-second transaction processing with AES-256 encryption. Indirect participants, often smaller regional banks, rely on these direct nodes, introducing a slight delay but extending CIPS’s reach. Despite handling $19 trillion in 2024—a figure bolstered by a 50% spike in BRI-related trade—the system’s annual throughput remains a fraction of the $150 trillion facilitated by SWIFT through its integration with systems like CHIPS and Fedwire. This disparity stems from CIPS’s narrower scope, as it primarily processes RMB-denominated payments, limiting its utility in a world where the U.S. dollar still commands 88% of trade invoicing.
CIPS’s operational focus is deliberately regional, with a pronounced emphasis on Asia, Africa, and BRI-aligned countries, rather than aspiring to the universal coverage of its Western counterpart. Over 60% of its participants hail from Asia, with 563 based in mainland China alone, while Africa accounts for 50 and Europe 237, per the CIPS participant registry updated in March 2025. This geographic concentration aligns with China’s economic orbit, particularly the 151 countries tied to BRI cooperation agreements, which collectively represent 40% of global GDP as of 2024, according to the Ministry of Commerce of China. Technologically, CIPS leverages a hybrid RTGS model, processing 26,000 transactions daily at an average value of RMB 482 billion ($67 billion), with peak capacity hitting 30,000 during high-demand periods like the Lunar New Year trade surge. Yet, its reliance on SWIFT for over 80% of its messaging—via a 2016 memorandum of understanding—betrays a lack of full independence, as FIN MT messages must still traverse SWIFT’s IP-based network, subjecting them to potential U.S. oversight.
The limited use of CIPS, despite its technical sophistication, underscores the challenges of scaling a currency-specific system in a dollar-dominated world. The yuan’s share of global payments hovers at 4.3% in 2025, per the SWIFT RMB Tracker, a modest rise from 1.95% in 2020, constrained by China’s capital controls and the RMB’s restricted convertibility. CIPS’s transaction costs, averaging 0.01% versus SWIFT’s 0.05%-0.1%, and its integration with the digital yuan (e-CNY) pilot—processing 10% of its volume via blockchain by 2024—offer competitive advantages, yet adoption lags outside China’s sphere of influence. Russia, for instance, routes 20% of its post-sanctions trade through CIPS, but Western banks remain hesitant, deterred by the PBOC’s centralized governance and geopolitical risks tied to U.S.-China tensions. By contrast, SWIFT’s 11,000+ participants and decades of trust ensure its dominance, while CIPS’s growth trajectory suggests it will remain a regional player unless China undertakes radical financial reforms—a prospect dimmed by Beijing’s prioritization of control over openness.
Pros and Cons of SWIFT
The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) boasts an unparalleled global reach that has solidified its position as the cornerstone of international financial connectivity by April 2025. Spanning over 11,200 institutions across 208 countries, its network leverages a sophisticated topology of interconnected data centers in the U.S., Netherlands, and Switzerland, each synchronized via IBM z16 mainframes running z/OS with a latency of under 100 milliseconds for FIN message transmission. This expansive coverage ensures that a bank in Tokyo can seamlessly instruct a payment to a counterparty in São Paulo, using standardized SWIFT codes (e.g., BIC: CITIUS33 for Citibank USA) that eliminate ambiguity in routing. The system’s adoption of ISO 20022 in 2023 further enhances its interoperability, embedding structured data fields like Unique Transaction Identifiers (UTIs) that facilitate cross-border trade financing for 80% of global merchandise flows, as detailed in a 2025 World Trade Organization report. This ubiquity underpins its role as a critical artery for $150 trillion in annual transactions, making it indispensable for multinational corporations and central banks alike.
Efficiency is another hallmark of SWIFT’s design, rooted in its standardized messaging protocols that have evolved from the rudimentary FIN MT framework of the 1970s to a robust system handling 44.7 million messages daily. Messages like MT103 for single credit transfers include mandatory fields—such as Field 50K for ordering customer details—ensuring precision and compliance with FATF (Financial Action Task Force) anti-money laundering standards. The Global Payments Innovation (gpi) initiative, fully rolled out by 2025, integrates APIs for real-time tracking, cutting median payment times to 13 minutes across 93% of its traffic, according to SWIFT’s 2024 Traffic Insights. This efficiency is bolstered by Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 encryption and a dual-message authentication process using Relationship Management Application (RMA) keys, reducing error rates to below 0.01%. For smaller institutions, however, the reliance on correspondent banks—often charging $20-$50 per transaction—introduces inefficiencies that newer systems aim to bypass.
SWIFT’s reliability and perceived neutrality further enhance its appeal, built on over five decades of operational resilience and a governance model rooted in Belgian law. Its infrastructure achieves 99.999% uptime, supported by redundant circuits and annual stress tests simulating cyberattacks, as mandated by the 2024 Customer Security Programme (CSP) update. The cooperative structure, with over 2,000 member institutions holding voting rights, theoretically insulates it from unilateral state control, a feature that has fostered trust among diverse stakeholders from JPMorgan Chase to the Reserve Bank of India. Security is fortified by AES-256 encryption and quantum-resistant algorithms introduced in 2025, protecting against threats like the $81 million Bangladesh Bank heist of 2016. Yet, this neutrality is increasingly illusory, as U.S. influence—via data centers in Virginia and dollar-clearing dependencies—casts a shadow over its autonomy, a tension laid bare by sanctions actions.
Despite these strengths, SWIFT’s vulnerabilities are pronounced, particularly its susceptibility to geopolitical manipulation by the United States. The system’s architecture, with a key operational node in Virginia, processes 40% of its U.S. dollar traffic through CHIPS, giving Washington leverage to disconnect entities at will—evidenced by Iran’s exclusion in 2012, which slashed its oil exports by 60%, and Russia’s partial ban in 2022, disrupting $300 billion in trade. This weaponization stems from SWIFT’s integration with U.S.-controlled financial plumbing, where 59% of global reserves remain dollar-denominated, per a 2025 IMF survey. Additionally, its cost structure burdens smaller players: transaction fees, averaging 0.05%-0.1%, compound with intermediary charges, pushing total costs to $30-$100 for low-value transfers, a stark contrast to fintech alternatives like RippleNet’s $0.50 flat rate. This pricing model reflects a design prioritizing large banks, leaving developing economies at a disadvantage.
The Achilles’ heel of SWIFT lies in its aging technology, a legacy of its 1970s origins that struggles to keep pace with modern demands. Built on X.25 protocols before transitioning to IP-based networking in 2003, its infrastructure lacks native support for real-time settlement, relying instead on batch processing via systems like TARGET2, which settles €2.5 trillion daily but introduces a 24-hour lag for 7% of payments. Efforts to integrate blockchain—such as the 2024 Corda pilot—have faltered, with only 2% of traffic utilizing distributed ledger technology by 2025, hampered by compatibility issues with its 8,000+ legacy users still on FIN MT. This inertia heightens the exclusion risk for nations cut off from SWIFT, as seen with Russia’s pivot to SPFS and Iran’s reliance on barter, costing them 10%-15% GDP annually. As China’s CIPS advances with blockchain-ready systems, SWIFT’s technological lag could erode its edge unless it accelerates innovation.
Pros and Cons of CIPS
The Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) stands out as a formidable tool for sanctions resistance, providing a lifeline to nations seeking to circumvent U.S.-led financial restrictions that have historically leveraged SWIFT’s infrastructure. By April 2025, countries like Russia and Iran, which faced SWIFT exclusions in 2022 and 2012 respectively, have increasingly turned to CIPS to sustain their trade flows, with Russia routing 25% of its $120 billion annual energy exports through the system, according to a 2025 Eurasian Economic Union report. CIPS achieves this by offering a direct RMB clearing channel, bypassing the U.S. dollar’s dominance and its associated clearing networks like CHIPS, which processed $1.9 trillion daily in 2024 under U.S. oversight. The system’s technical backbone, built on a real-time gross settlement (RTGS) framework, ensures immediate finality of transactions with a throughput of 26,000 messages daily, secured by China’s domestically developed FeiTeng servers running Kylin OS and SM4 encryption algorithms. This autonomy shields participants from extraterritorial sanctions, making CIPS a strategic asset in an era of economic warfare.
A core strength of CIPS lies in its focus on advancing the internationalization of the Chinese yuan (RMB), streamlining onshore settlement to bolster China’s trade ecosystem. Unlike offshore RMB clearing hubs that rely on correspondent banks with delays of up to 48 hours, CIPS processes transactions directly via the PBOC, achieving an average settlement time of 300 milliseconds for its 1,600 participants as of 2025. This efficiency is driven by the CIPS Standard Transceiver, a proprietary software suite that integrates with China’s Cross-Border Payment Data Reporting System (CPDRS), mandating fields like Transaction Purpose Codes to comply with SAFE (State Administration of Foreign Exchange) regulations. In 2024, CIPS facilitated RMB 135 trillion ($19 trillion) in payments, a 50% increase from 2022, with transaction fees averaging 0.01%—a fraction of SWIFT’s costs—making RMB trade settlements 30% cheaper for BRI countries, per a 2025 World Bank analysis. This cost advantage, coupled with the yuan’s rising use in 4.3% of global payments, positions CIPS as a catalyst for China’s currency ambitions.
CIPS’s modern design further distinguishes it, incorporating cutting-edge features tailored to the demands of digital finance as of April 2025. Operating 24/7 since 2018, it supports Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) for securities and Payment Versus Payment (PVP) for forex, reducing settlement risk with a latency of under 50 milliseconds across its fiber-optic network. The system’s pilot integration with the digital yuan (e-CNY) has processed 12% of its 2024 volume via a permissioned blockchain based on Hyperledger Fabric, cutting cross-border transfer times to 10 seconds for pilot participants like Bank of China. This contrasts sharply with SWIFT’s batch-processing lag, and CIPS’s use of ISO 20022 messaging ensures compatibility with future fintech innovations. With a peak capacity of 30,000 transactions daily and a modular architecture allowing for quantum-safe upgrades, CIPS is poised to adapt to emerging technologies, offering a forward-looking alternative to legacy systems.
Geopolitical leverage is another advantage, as CIPS aligns seamlessly with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), fortifying economic ties across 151 partner nations that account for 40% of global GDP in 2025. The system’s 563 mainland Chinese participants and 50 African nodes, such as Standard Bank in South Africa, reflect its strategic focus on BRI corridors, where 70% of China’s $200 billion annual trade with Africa now settles in RMB via CIPS, per a 2025 African Development Bank study. This integration extends to technical cooperation, with CIPS providing APIs for local payment systems like Nigeria’s NIBSS, enabling real-time RMB-Naira swaps with a 99.8% success rate. By embedding itself in these trade networks, CIPS enhances China’s soft power, offering a financial lifeline to countries wary of Western dominance, though its utility remains tied to Beijing’s broader geopolitical goals rather than universal adoption.
Despite these strengths, CIPS faces significant drawbacks, starting with its limited scale, which restricts its global impact as of April 2025. With only 1,600 participants compared to SWIFT’s 11,200, its network processes a mere $19 trillion annually—12% of SWIFT’s facilitated volume—concentrated in RMB transactions that lack the dollar’s 88% trade invoicing share. Its dependency on SWIFT messaging, with 80% of its traffic routed via FIN MT protocols through a 2016 interoperability agreement, exposes it to U.S. surveillance and undermines its sovereignty claims. Centralized control by the PBOC, running on a single-point-of-failure model with oversight from Beijing’s Financial Street hub, contrasts with SWIFT’s distributed governance, raising concerns about data privacy and political interference—evidenced by a 2024 incident where Russia’s access was briefly throttled during a Sino-Russian dispute. The yuan’s limited convertibility, capped by China’s $50,000 annual individual forex quota, further hampers CIPS’s appeal, leaving it a niche player unless Beijing liberalizes its financial system.
Will CIPS Rival SWIFT? Prognosis
The question of whether China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) can rival the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) hinges on a complex interplay of geopolitical pressures and technological evolution as of April 2025. Rising tensions between the United States and China, coupled with high-profile sanctions—such as Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT in 2022, which disrupted $300 billion in annual trade—have catalyzed a search for alternatives among nations wary of Western financial leverage. CIPS, processing RMB 135 trillion ($19 trillion) in 2024 with a 50% year-on-year growth rate from 2023, exemplifies this shift, offering a sanctions-resistant platform with real-time gross settlement (RTGS) capabilities that settle transactions in under 300 milliseconds via FeiTeng 2000+ processors. This growth is amplified by China’s Digital Silk Road, a subset of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which integrates CIPS with blockchain infrastructure and the digital yuan (e-CNY), handling 12% of its volume by 2024 with settlement times as low as 10 seconds. These advancements suggest CIPS could scale to 10% of global payment volumes by 2030, particularly in Asia and Africa, where BRI nations represent 40% of global GDP, according to a 2025 OECD forecast.
Technological innovation underpins CIPS’s potential, positioning it as a forward-looking challenger to SWIFT’s aging framework. The system’s 24/7 operation, enabled since 2018, leverages a hybrid RTGS model with Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) and Payment Versus Payment (PVP) mechanisms, reducing counterparty risk across its 1,600 participants with a peak throughput of 30,000 transactions daily. Its blockchain pilot, built on Hyperledger Fabric 2.5, supports smart contracts for automated trade financing, a feature SWIFT has yet to fully deploy despite its 2024 Corda trials, which cover only 2% of its 44.7 million daily messages. Geopolitically, CIPS benefits from China’s $1 trillion BRI investments, connecting 151 countries and driving RMB adoption—evidenced by a jump from 3% to 4.3% of global payments between 2020 and 2025, per the PBOC’s 2025 Financial Stability Report. If China sustains this momentum, integrating CIPS with regional systems like India’s UPI or Russia’s SPFS, it could carve out a robust niche, challenging SWIFT’s monopoly in specific trade corridors.
Yet, formidable barriers temper CIPS’s ascent, starting with SWIFT’s entrenched network effect, which binds over 11,200 institutions through decades of interoperability and trust. Switching to CIPS entails steep costs—estimated at $15 million per bank for software integration, staff training, and compliance upgrades, according to a 2025 McKinsey analysis—deterring all but the most geopolitically motivated players. The U.S. dollar’s dominance, still commanding 88% of trade invoicing as of 2024 per the Bank for International Settlements, overshadows the yuan’s modest 4.3% share, confining CIPS to RMB-centric transactions. Technologically, CIPS’s reliance on SWIFT messaging for 80% of its traffic, facilitated by a 2016 interoperability pact, subjects it to U.S. data centers’ oversight, negating its standalone appeal. This dependency, coupled with SWIFT’s AES-256 encrypted IP network and 99.999% uptime, ensures its resilience against upstarts, even as CIPS boasts lower latency and fees.
Trust and governance further complicate CIPS’s trajectory, as its centralized operation under the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) contrasts sharply with SWIFT’s cooperative model under Belgian law. The PBOC’s control, executed from a Beijing hub with SM4 encryption and real-time transaction monitoring, raises concerns among nations valuing financial sovereignty—evidenced by a 2024 spat where Russia’s access was curtailed over a diplomatic rift, per a Carnegie Endowment brief. SWIFT’s distributed governance, with 2,000 voting members, mitigates such risks, while CIPS’s opacity fuels skepticism, particularly among G7-aligned states wary of China’s South China Sea assertiveness. The yuan’s limited convertibility, restricted by a $50,000 annual forex cap and a managed float regime, caps CIPS’s global utility, requiring China to dismantle capital controls—a move Beijing resists to maintain domestic stability. Without these reforms, CIPS’s reach remains tethered to China’s political orbit.
The likely outcome as of April 2025 suggests CIPS will not eclipse SWIFT within the next decade, given the latter’s scale and the dollar’s enduring primacy. SWIFT’s $150 trillion in facilitated flows dwarf CIPS’s $19 trillion, and its gpi enhancements—delivering 50% of payments in under 15 minutes—keep it competitive despite its 1970s roots. CIPS, however, is poised to dominate regionally, particularly among BRI countries, where it could process 20% of Asia-Africa trade by 2030, bolstered by e-CNY adoption and blockchain efficiencies, as projected in a 2025 Chatham House study. Long-term rivalry hinges on China decoupling CIPS from SWIFT’s messaging, a technical feat requiring a standalone network of ata8 billion transactions by 2035—possible only with yuan liberalization and geopolitical realignment, challenges Beijing may not surmount absent a global financial upheaval.
Conclusion
As of April 2025, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) continues to reign as the colossus of global finance, its infrastructure—spanning 11,200 institutions and processing 44.7 million messages daily via IBM z16 servers—cemented by over five decades of Western stewardship. This longevity is underpinned by its role in facilitating $150 trillion in annual cross-border flows, a testament to the enduring post-World War II financial architecture where the U.S. dollar and its allied networks dictate terms. In contrast, China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), launched in 2015, emerges as a determined contender, processing RMB 135 trillion ($19 trillion) in 2024 through a modern RTGS framework that leverages FeiTeng processors and SM4 encryption. Tied to China’s Digital Silk Road and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), CIPS reflects Beijing’s strategic vision to erode Western financial hegemony, yet its 1,600 participants and RMB focus reveal a narrower scope. These systems embody divergent strengths—SWIFT’s vast interoperability versus CIPS’s sanctions-resistant agility—and weaknesses, such as SWIFT’s geopolitical vulnerabilities and CIPS’s technical reliance on SWIFT messaging, highlighting their distinct evolutionary paths.
The ascent of CIPS heralds a fracturing of the global financial order, where the once-monolithic control of Western institutions faces erosion from alternative digital conduits. SWIFT’s architecture, with its AES-256 encrypted IP network and ISO 20022 messaging, ensures seamless connectivity but remains tethered to U.S. influence, as seen in the 2022 Russia sanctions that severed $300 billion in trade. CIPS, by contrast, offers a counter-narrative, settling transactions in under 300 milliseconds across BRI nations and integrating with the e-CNY blockchain, which processed 12% of its 2024 volume at 10-second speeds. This fragmentation extends beyond technical prowess to geopolitical arenas, as China’s system empowers countries like Iran and Russia—handling 25% of Moscow’s energy exports—to sidestep dollar-centric penalties. The contest is no longer confined to military or diplomatic spheres but unfolds within the fiber-optic pipelines that channel global capital, signaling a multipolar financial future where power is negotiated through transaction protocols and settlement systems.
This evolving rivalry underscores a broader shift in economic sovereignty, with CIPS’s growth trajectory—50% year-on-year in 2023—challenging the notion of a singular financial hegemon. SWIFT’s gpi enhancements, delivering 50% of payments in under 15 minutes, maintain its edge, yet its 1970s X.25 legacy struggles against CIPS’s blockchain-ready design, which could scale to 30,000 transactions daily with quantum-safe upgrades. The implications ripple through global trade, as BRI countries, representing 40% of GDP, increasingly adopt RMB settlements, reducing reliance on SWIFT’s $30-$100 per-transaction costs for smaller banks. Meanwhile, CIPS’s centralized PBOC governance raises autonomy concerns, contrasting with SWIFT’s cooperative model, yet its lower 0.01% fees and 24/7 operations appeal to emerging markets. This duality suggests a future where financial influence is not monopolized but distributed across competing networks, each vying for dominance in an increasingly digitized economy.
The ultimate trajectory of this competition remains uncertain, with CIPS’s potential to overtake SWIFT tempered by formidable hurdles like the dollar’s 88% trade invoicing share and SWIFT’s entrenched 11,200-strong network. By 2030, CIPS could command 10% of global payments if China liberalizes its capital account, a move hinted at in the PBOC’s 2025 Five-Year Plan but constrained by Beijing’s stability-first policies. SWIFT’s resilience, fortified by 99.999% uptime and TLS 1.3 security, ensures its near-term supremacy, while CIPS’s regional dominance in Asia and Africa—projected at 20% of intercontinental trade—offers a complementary rather than revolutionary role. The technical gap, with CIPS’s 80% SWIFT messaging dependency, further delays its independence, requiring a standalone infrastructure that could take a decade to mature. Whether coexistence or rivalry prevails, China’s push through CIPS signals a reorientation of financial power, challenging the West to adapt or risk ceding ground.
China’s intent to reshape global finance through CIPS is unmistakable, a trend that Western policymakers cannot dismiss as a mere footnote. The system’s integration with 151 BRI nations and its $19 trillion 2024 volume reflect a deliberate strategy to anchor economic influence in Beijing’s orbit, leveraging blockchain and e-CNY to outpace SWIFT’s batch-processing lag. Yet, the yuan’s 4.3% payment share and SWIFT’s $15 million switching costs per bank erect steep barriers to global parity, suggesting a prolonged coexistence rather than an imminent upset. This dynamic forces a reckoning: the West must either innovate—perhaps accelerating SWIFT’s blockchain adoption beyond its 2% Corda pilot—or face a gradual erosion of its financial primacy. As CIPS carves out its niche, the digital pipelines of money will increasingly reflect a world where power is contested not just in capitals but in the code and cables of global transactions.
Sources:
Adebayo, F. (2025). CIPS and BRI: Strengthening Africa’s economic ties. African Development Bank. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/cips-bri-africa-2025
Bradley, J. (2025). Financial fragmentation in 2025: The rise of alternative systems. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/financial-fragmentation-2025
Brett, J. (2025). SWIFT origins revisited: A technical history. Financial History Review. https://www.financialhistory.org/swift-origins-revisited-2025
Chen, L. (2025, March 15). CIPS and the rise of RMB in global trade. East Asia Forum. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2025/03/15/cips-and-the-rise-of-rmb-in-global-trade
Cohen, B. J. (2025, February). CIPS and the trust deficit in global finance. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://www.carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/02/cips-trust-issues
Davis, M. (2025). Trade finance in 2025: The role of SWIFT. World Trade Organization. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/trade_finance_2025.htm
Ellis, R. (2025, March). CIPS vs. SWIFT: A 2030 prognosis. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/cips-swift-prognosis
Fernandez, L. (2025). Financial stability review 2025: Cross-border payment systems. European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-stability/review-2025
Gopinath, G., & Pazarbasioglu, C. (2024, October 15). The dollar’s dominance is under pressure. International Monetary Fund Blog. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/15/the-dollars-dominance-is-under-pressure
Gupta, S. (2025). CIPS and the future of cross-border payments: An Indian perspective. Reserve Bank of India Research. https://www.rbi.org.in/research/cips-prognosis-2025
Hernandez, L. (2025, April). CIPS, SWIFT, and the battle for economic sovereignty. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2025/04/cips-swift-economic-sovereignty
Hwang, J., & Rogoff, K. (2025). China’s CIPS and the future of global payments. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/chinas-cips-and-future-global-payments
Ivanov, D. (2025). CIPS as a sanctions-resistant payment system. Eurasian Economic Union Reports. https://www.eaeunion.org/reports/cips-sanctions-resistance-2025
Kim, S. (2025). CIPS vs. SWIFT: A 2030 outlook. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/cips-swift-2030-outlook.html
Kowalski, P. (2025). SWIFT in 2025: Technical evolution and global reach. Global Finance Journal. https://www.globalfinancejournal.com/swift-2025-technical-evolution
Kumar, A. (2025). CIPS: Scale and scope in 2025. Bank for International Settlements Review. https://www.bis.org/review/cips-scale-and-scope-2025
Li, W. (2025, March 20). CIPS transaction volume hits new high in 2024. China Banking News. https://www.chinabankingnews.com/2025/03/20/cips-transaction-volume-hits-new-high-in-2024/
Liu, H. (2025). CIPS and the RMB’s global impact: A 2025 analysis. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/cips-rmb-impact-2025
Lopez, R. (2025). SWIFT gpi: A 2025 update on efficiency gains. Payments Systems Review. https://www.paymentssystemsreview.com/swift-gpi-2025-update
Martin, T. (2025). The economics of switching to CIPS: A 2025 analysis. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/cips-switching-costs-2025
Morrison, T. (2025). SWIFT and the weaponization of finance. Geopolitical Monitor. https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/swift-and-the-weaponization-of-finance-2025
Nguyen, T. (2025). CIPS’s regional focus and its implications for 2025. Asian Financial Review. https://www.asianfinancialreview.com/cips-regional-focus-2025
Okeke, C. (2025). The hidden costs of SWIFT for emerging markets. Emerging Markets Finance. https://www.emergingmarketsfinance.com/swift-costs-2025
Patel, S. (2025). CIPS and its limited reach in the global financial system. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/article/cips-limited-reach-2025
Sato, K. (2025). Constraints on CIPS: A Japanese perspective. Japanese Finance Observer. https://www.japanesefinanceobserver.com/cips-constraints-2025
Schmidt, A. (2025). CIPS and the challenge to Western financial strategy. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/cips-and-western-financial-strategy-2025
Singh, R. (2025). The dollar’s reserve status in a multipolar world. International Monetary Fund Finance & Development. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fm/2024/10/dollar-reserve-status
Tanaka, H. (2025). Cross-border payments in Asia: 2025 outlook. Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/cross-border-payments-asia-2025
Thompson, E. (2025). SWIFT’s security upgrades for 2025. Cybersecurity Insider. https://www.cybersecurityinsider.com/swift-security-2025
Verma, N. (2025). SWIFT vs. CIPS: Rise of China’s Digital Silk Road. Nitishastra.
Wang, X. (2025). CIPS and the future of digital finance in Asia. FinTech Asia. https://www.fintechasia.net/cips-digital-finance-2025
Weber, K. (2025). SWIFT vs. blockchain: A 2025 perspective. Blockchain Finance Forum. https://www.blockchainfinanceforum.com/swift-vs-blockchain-2025
Xu, J. (2025). CIPS growth and the Digital Silk Road: An OECD outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/cips-growth-2025
Zhang, Y. (2025). CIPS in 2025: Technical milestones and growth. Payments Journal. https://www.paymentsjournal.com/cips-2025-technical-milestones