Ripple’s XRP Ambitions Rest on a $35 Billion Weekly Payments Scenario

Ripple’s challenge to Ethereum depends on turning payments reach into sustained use of the XRP Ledger. Tria founder John Lilic has sketched one possible route: connect the RLUSD stablecoin with payment cards and neobanking services, then try to capture a slice of Visa’s transaction volume. It’s an ambitious proposal, but the scale of the opportunity shouldn’t be confused with evidence that customers or merchants will adopt it. The idea describes a possible distribution strategy; it doesn’t show that the pieces are in place or that the resulting activity would require XRP.

From payment cards to XRPL settlement

In an interview with XRP influencer Eri, Lilic proposed that Ripple could work with payment networks such as Visa or Mastercard on credit cards backed by its RLUSD stablecoin. Pairing cards with banking and financial management tools, he argued, could help Ripple reach customers beyond crypto users. That’s a meaningful part of the pitch: people don’t need to seek out a crypto wallet if the payment product is presented through familiar financial services. But access to a card would be only the first step. The underlying settlement route would determine whether card activity actually brings payments onto XRPL.

Lilic estimates Visa processes about $350 billion in transactions each week. A 10% share would amount to roughly $35 billion in weekly payment volume, and he projects that the approach could lead to at least $10 billion in additional RLUSD issuance over three years. Those figures give the proposal a clear scale, but they’re assumptions about what a successful rollout might achieve, not reported results. A share of a network’s volume also wouldn’t automatically mean the same amount is settled on XRPL: the design of the service and the choices made by its payment partners would matter.

His thesis assumes the XRP Ledger would settle those payments, placing XRPL at the center of the proposed system. Lilic expects broader network use to support demand for XRP, but payment volume alone doesn’t establish how much XRP would be needed or whether that use would translate into higher demand for the token. A system can move a large value through an asset while holding relatively little of it at any one time, depending on how settlement and liquidity are arranged. That’s why the claim needs to be assessed as a chain of separate steps, rather than as a direct line from card spending to token value.

Volume is not the same as token value

At the projected pace, $35 billion per week would equal about $1.82 trillion annually, or $5.46 trillion across three years. Those totals describe potential payment flows; they don’t imply an equivalent increase in XRP’s market capitalization. The effect would depend on the token’s role in settlement and liquidity, including whether it’s held, how frequently it changes hands, and whether the system needs XRP at all for each payment. A larger RLUSD supply wouldn’t by itself create buying pressure for XRP, since a stablecoin and the network’s associated token serve different roles.

This is more significant than it looks. Payment volume can make a network appear busy while leaving unanswered the question investors and users may care about most: what function does the native token perform in that activity? If XRP is needed to bridge currencies or provide liquidity, greater use could matter in a way that simply issuing or transferring RLUSD might not. If transactions can be settled without meaningful XRP use, the connection between a successful card product and demand for the token would be weaker. The proposal doesn’t specify enough to resolve that question.

That distinction matters when weighing Lilic’s ambition for XRP to close the gap with Ethereum. His view is notable in part because he was an early advocate for Ethereum, but that background doesn’t validate the forecast. Ripple would need to establish the proposed products, attract payment activity, and route meaningful settlement through XRPL. Each step involves a different test: whether partners support the products, whether customers use them, and whether the resulting transactions rely on the ledger in the way the thesis assumes. A promising distribution plan can still fall short at any one of those stages.

Ethereum’s lead sets a high bar

CoinGecko figures cited in the source put ETH at $2,287 and a $279.4 billion market capitalization, compared with XRP at $1.25 and about $79.2 billion. The difference is roughly $200.2 billion. With Ether’s market cap held constant, XRP would need to reach about $4.41 to match it, an increase of approximately 253% from its stated price. The comparison is a snapshot, not a target price: it shows the size of the gap under those figures, while leaving future prices and market caps unknown.

That calculation also makes an assumption that’s easy to miss: Ethereum’s valuation stays put while XRP rises. If either market cap changes, the price XRP would need to match Ethereum’s value changes too. And matching market capitalization wouldn’t prove that the payment strategy worked. The price comparison measures relative valuation; adoption would need to be assessed through actual use of the products, payment activity on XRPL, and the role XRP plays in those transactions. The numbers here are underwhelming as proof of a near-term outcome, even if they help explain the size of Lilic’s ambition.

What would make the thesis credible

For now, Lilic’s payment thesis gives XRP a large potential use case to pursue, but its significance will depend on measurable adoption and the actual role XRP plays in settling transactions. The proposal links several familiar ideas—stablecoin payments, cards, banking tools, and ledger settlement—into one growth story. The link is plausible in principle; execution is the test (and this is the part most people overlook). A customer using a card wouldn’t, by itself, show that the XRP Ledger handled the payment or that XRP benefited from it.

If you’re working in this space, the useful questions are concrete: are the products available, are payment partners routing activity through XRPL, and does that activity create a need for XRP? Answers would make it easier to distinguish growing stablecoin use from growing use of the ledger and from demand for its token. Until then, the weekly volume and three-year issuance estimates remain projections. A big addressable market. A long chain of conditions.

That said, the proposal highlights a practical challenge for blockchain payment projects: getting users may depend less on asking them to adopt a new crypto habit than on fitting into services they already understand. Cards and banking tools could offer that route, if the partnerships and settlement design support it. The next evidence that matters won’t be another large hypothetical total, but whether real payment activity reaches XRPL and what role XRP has in carrying it.