[DigitalToday reporter Jinju Hong (홍진주)] A list of bank identifiers linked to Ripple has recently spread in the XRP community and been interpreted as evidence of large-scale adoption by the financial sector, but an analysis says it is closer to a technical document for setting up international remittance routes.

The Crypto Basic, a blockchain media outlet, reported on June 4 that screenshots of part of Ripple’s payments infrastructure documentation have recently been shared on social media and online communities and drawn attention.

The document organises bank identifiers and routing codes for multiple regions including Europe, Britain, Asia and Oceania. As it appears to include dozens of countries and more than 500 financial institutions, some investors took it as a sign that Ripple has built a broad banking network and that XRP adoption is expanding.

But some point out that the nature of the document differs somewhat from how the market has interpreted it. According to the report, the material is part of developer documentation for Ripple Payments, Ripple’s international payments service. It more closely resembles a collection of bank identifiers used to accurately specify the receiving institution in the payments infrastructure formerly known as On-Demand Liquidity (ODL). That means it is technical material for setting the correct settlement route when sending funds to a specific bank.

In fact, Ripple did not mention the document as a key achievement in a separate press release or investor presentation. Executives have also never introduced it as a new partnership or an example of adoption by a financial institution.

The large number of banks listed is also related to differences in regional payment systems. In the European Economic Area (EEA), many use country-level identification systems, so country codes are central, but some countries such as Vietnam use individual bank-level identification systems. As a result, the Vietnam entry lists dozens of banks, each with a separate code, which can make the network appear larger. But this reflects differences in how remittance routes are set, and does not mean all those banks have signed commercial contracts with Ripple.

Experts say technical connectivity and actual commercial adoption must be distinguished. The document can confirm that Ripple’s infrastructure is designed to deliver remittances to specific banks, but it cannot show from this document alone whether those banks are actually using Ripple’s payments network.

Likewise, it contains no information on whether the institutions use XRP as a liquidity asset, whether they have deployed Ripple’s payments solution in an operating environment, or how much actual transaction volume there is. The Crypto Basic compared it to highway exit signs. Having many exits means it is possible to reach many destinations, but it does not show how many vehicles are actually travelling on the road, it said.

Still, the document is not meaningless. It can confirm that Ripple has built fairly detailed payments infrastructure targeting the EEA, Britain and major remittance markets in Asia. Some also say reflecting even countries like Vietnam, where bank-by-bank routing systems are complex, would require an understanding of local financial systems and regulatory environments, as well as long-term integration work.

On the other hand, important information is still missing from this document alone. It cannot confirm whether listed institutions have contracts with Ripple, how much transaction volume there is, which institutions are active within the Ripple ecosystem, or whether they actually use XRP or RLUSD as liquidity assets. Some also say investors need additional evidence such as partnership announcements, transaction volumes, quarterly reports and independent blockchain analysis to gauge Ripple’s market penetration.

Ultimately, the bank identifier list is material that shows the level of Ripple’s payments infrastructure buildout, but it does not directly support the online interpretation that "Ripple is connected to more than 500 banks." What the document proves is not large-scale XRP adoption, but a detailed routing system built with real remittance operations in mind. What the market needs to check is not the size of the document, but how many institutions and transactions are actually moving on top of it.

Market experts advise that assessing Ripple’s actual market penetration requires looking at practical operating indicators together, such as partnership announcements, payments volume, quarterly reports and blockchain data, rather than technical documents.