Banks Are Tokenizing Everything: Do Chainlink or XRP Benefit?

Banks are increasingly moving funds, bonds, and commodities onto blockchain platforms, and both Chainlink (CRYPTO: LINK) and XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) have been getting a lot of attention in this shift. In late September 2026, Chainlink announced a partnership with Infosys, a company whose banking software manages 1.7 billion customer accounts. Chainlink also announced a connection to SWIFT’s new blockchain ledger. Meanwhile, the XRP Ledger has seen a surge in tokenized commodities.

Despite these developments, both tokens have fallen. As of October 8, LINK is trading around $13, which is about 40% lower than a year ago, while XRP is at roughly $1.41, nearly half its value from the previous year. This leaves LINK at about 75% below its all-time high of $52.70 from 2021, and XRP is about 61% below its peak of $3.65.

Given this context, the question arises: do the banks’ financial activities on these networks benefit investors holding LINK or XRP?

Chainlink vs. XRP: How Each Network Handles Fees

Chainlink operates as an oracle network, providing external data like asset prices to blockchains so that smart contracts can function effectively. It also enables asset movement between blockchains via its Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) and charges fees for these services. Users can pay these fees in LINK or other tokens, creating potential demand for LINK as banks use its services.

When a bank uses Chainlink and pays the fee in LINK, someone must buy LINK first, either the bank directly or an intermediary. This creates market demand, which is a strong point for LINK holders.

In contrast, the XRP Ledger functions differently. Each transaction incurs a small fee paid in XRP, which is then destroyed, thereby slightly reducing the total supply of XRP. Ripple has also been focusing on its dollar-backed RLUSD stablecoin for transactions, meaning that much of the activity on the ledger may not involve XRP trading hands at all.

Banks Can Use Chainlink Without Holding LINK

The partnership with Infosys highlights a limitation for LINK. Banks that use the Infosys software can access Chainlink and settle payments in dollars without ever needing to hold LINK. The involvement of 1.7 billion accounts doesn’t guarantee that banks will actively use Chainlink.

As a result, demand for LINK from bank activity could be short-lived. An intermediary might purchase LINK, use it for a transaction quickly, and never hold onto it, leading to lower demand than if banks kept LINK in their reserves.

The connection to SWIFT similarly warrants caution. On September 28, Chainlink announced that banks can connect to the SWIFT ledger through its software, but the 17 banks involved—including HSBC, Citi, UBS, and Wells Fargo—are still testing live transactions.

Testing does not commit any bank to a specific fee structure or require a LINK purchase, and LINK has already dropped about 9% in value over the week leading up to October 8.

The XRP Ledger’s $2.2 Billion in Commodity Inflows Doesn’t Lift XRP Demand

XRP faces similar scrutiny, even as the XRP Ledger has seen net inflows of $2.2 billion in tokenized commodities so far in 2026, outpacing Ethereum’s $1.6 billion. These gains have been largely driven by energy tokens like JMWH, which is linked to power-generation contracts.

However, these $2.2 billion inflows represent the value of commodities registered on the ledger, not real demand for XRP itself. The amount of XRP burned in these transactions is minuscule compared to its overall market value, which stands at about $89 billion. In fact, XRP fell about 7% over the same week, despite the positive headlines about inflows.

Moreover, Chainlink does not disclose its fee revenue from bank-related activities, and the XRP Ledger does not provide a breakdown of burned fees associated with bank use. Therefore, it’s hard for investors to gauge how much either token benefits from banks’ activities.

Chainlink vs. XRP: Which Token Benefits When Banks Tokenize?

When it comes to which token has a stronger case, Chainlink comes out ahead. Its fees can be paid in LINK, which could create more buyers for the token as banks engage with it. On the other hand, the XRP Ledger’s fee structure destroys XRP with each transaction and allows payments to be conducted with RLUSD, limiting the direct benefit to XRP holders.

That said, LINK’s advantages have limits, as banks that prefer dollar payments may keep demand for LINK low and route transactions through intermediaries. If Chainlink were to publish its fee revenue from bank activities or if a bank were to designate XRP as its primary settlement asset, the dynamics of how much each token gains from tokenization could change significantly.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.