Google Cloud’s new blockchain looks a lot like Ripple’s XRP Ledger.
Alphabet’s (GOOG 1.27%) (GOOGL 1.23%) Google recently unveiled its Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL), which has a lot in common with Ripple Labs’ XRP (XRP -0.20%) Ledger (XRPL). Both blockchains provide faster, cheaper, and more secure financial transactions than traditional SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transfers, and they both support cross-border transfers, automated payments, integrations with third-party digital wallets, and tokenized assets.
That announcement might alarm Ripple’s users and XRP’s investors, but is Google really trying to kill XRP? Let’s review the key similarities and differences to find out.
GCUL and XRPL are both designed to facilitate faster financial transactions, but there are three key differences.
First, GCUL is a centralized private platform that is only open to vetted and approved institutions. It’s geared toward regulatory compliance, stability, and institutional control, with Google Cloud initially managing its governance and infrastructure services.
XRPL is a decentralized public platform that anyone can access. Its validators are spread out across the world instead of being corralled within a single company. That can be a double-edged sword: It can be more freely accessed than GCUL, but the lack of a vetting and approval process exposes it to more illegal transactions.
Second, GCUL doesn’t have its own native token. XRPL has a native token, XRP, which is mainly used to satisfy its settlements, fees, and reserve requirements. XRPL’s fees are low, but its fees rise as its network activity increases. GCUL charges predictable monthly fees instead of relying on volatile fees driven by the blockchain system’s “tokenomics.”
XRPL also has its own native stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD -0.02%), which is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Both Ripple USD and XRP are frequently used for bridge currency transfers — in which two volatile or illiquid currencies are directly converted to the native token as a “bridge” instead of being converted to a third fiat currency (like the U.S. dollar) in a slower and pricier transaction. Without its own tokens, GCUL will likely underperform XRPL in those bridge currency transfers.
Lastly, GCUL natively supports smart contracts, which are used in the development of blockchain-based applications. XRPL only natively supports lightweight “hooks” for developing simpler programs, but it’s reportedly been mulling the development of “sidechains” to integrate more Ethereum (ETH 0.90%)-based smart contracts into its ledger.
Google’s GCUL could be an appealing option for larger banks, clearinghouses, and asset managers who prefer a tightly regulated platform with predictable fees. It could also be a natural fit for large enterprise customers that are already locked into Google’s cloud-based services.
However, XRPL’s decentralized approach, resistance to regulators, and lower fees should make it more appealing to individual users and smaller financial institutions who don’t want to lock themselves into Google’s ecosystem. Google is also approving GCUL’s customers on a strict case-by-case basis, which could drive more customers to XRPL due to the sluggish process.
Moreover, Google doesn’t plan to officially launch GCUL until 2026. Before that happens, a few major catalysts could spark XRPL’s near-term expansion: the increased adoption of Ripple USD as an alternative to the U.S. dollar; the approvals of XRP’s first spot price exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in October and November, and the rollout of more sidechains to support the development of decentralized apps (dApps) and other crypto assets.
XRPL has already partnered with more than 300 banks worldwide, so there could plenty of room for both of these blockchains to flourish without trampling each other. XRPL and GCUL certainly have plenty of overlapping interests, but it’s premature to call the latter — or any other newcomer — an “XRP killer” before it even launches.
