So this article has been making the rounds:
gtreview.com
1) this article is about the nostro-vostro project, and LINK has nothing to do with this.
Even if SWIFT's nostro-vostro project never uses a blockchain, it would not impact SWIFT's use of Chainlink smart contracts.
Here's this nostro-vostro project: coindesk.com
LINK was never involved. Its demo for instance was a completely distinct use case involving smart securities/bonds and ISO-compliant messaging (the backbone of SWIFT).
2) the "blockchain" in the article is Hyperledger Fabric, and it is literally stated in the article that SWIFT might still use a different blockchain still for the nostro-vostro project.
>Even if Swift were to pick blockchain to address current inefficiencies, the choice of specific platform that it uses – Hyperledger Fabric – is not set in stone.
And then there's these little gems:
>Swift has concluded that it’s “crucial” that integration with legacy back-office applications and co-existence with existing processes are taken into account.
and
>“Swift needs to bring a solution which minimises investment costs and allows co-existence with existing infrastructure and solutions.”
This screams Chainlink (which is low threshold, plug&play).
SWIFT is feeling the heat from Ripple and IBM (with Lumens).
Cross-border payments with blockchain are almost instance, while it takes a full day for SWIFT's ongoing GPI project to process payments.
they are adopting blockchain tech, there is no question about it.
