SWIFT’s CBDC Platform: Integration or Redundancy?

However, critics argue that the very purpose of CBDCs is to bypass intermediaries like SWIFT. If CBDCs are designed to enable direct peer-to-peer settlement between institutions or even individuals, the reliance on legacy messaging rails could slow innovation and add unnecessary costs. Moreover, emerging platforms such as Project mBridge, Agorá, and private blockchain networks are already showing that cross-border CBDC transfers can be achieved without traditional middlemen.

The debate goes beyond technical functionality. At its core, it is about control, trust, and systemic resilience. Supporters of SWIFT integration highlight its track record of security, regulatory compliance, and global reach—qualities that new networks still need to prove. On the other hand, advocates of fresh CBDC infrastructure emphasize sovereignty, programmability, and efficiency, warning that attaching CBDCs to SWIFT could replicate old inefficiencies in a new system.

The answer may ultimately lie in a hybrid model where SWIFT coexists with newer platforms. It could serve as a bridge between CBDCs during the early years of adoption, gradually ceding ground as more direct, blockchain-native systems scale. Much depends on how central banks design their CBDCs, the speed of adoption, and the geopolitical considerations that shape global finance.

In short, SWIFT’s CBDC platform stands at a crossroads: it can either become a key enabler of interoperability in the digital era, or risk being seen as an unnecessary layer in an increasingly decentralized financial system.