Why is SWIFT broken after all

If you've ever purchased any good from another country, you've already experienced the global payments system likely without realizing it. Perhaps something from the United States or China. Even though these countries might be at a reasonable distance from you, the path money takes is relatively simple: one large bank sends your money to another large bank.

Now think about what it takes to send money from São Paulo (Brazil) to La Paz (Bolivia). It should be simple, right? After all, the countries share a border. But that's where you'd be wrong. 

The payment has to travel about 10,000 km (more than 3x the distance between the cities). Along the way, it passes through at least 3 countries and half a dozen financial institutions, navigating various types of regulation and adding a good amount of fees.

Unfortunately, this reality doesn't just happen in Latin America. It applies to most countries outside the G20.

While information travels instantly from your phone, money seems stuck in a system that holds it back. That system is called SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication).

What is SWIFT

Founded in 1973 by 239 banks across 15 countries, SWIFT was created to standardize international financial messaging with one shared vision: transforming the way value travels across borders. The Telex era had come to an end with the birth of SWIFT. 

Acting as a global corporation of financial institutions, SWIFT is a unified, secure and standardized network for institutions to exchange financial instructions. For example: Bank X will send a message to Bank Y to carry out a transaction between Company A and Company B. In other words, it doesn't transfer money. SWIFT is the messaging system, like WhatsApp.

Over the last 50 years, it became the default architecture of the global economy. In 2026, the network connects more than 11,500 institutions and processes 53 million financial messages per day. SWIFT replaced its predecessor long ago and is now, by any measure, the backbone of the global economy.

While SWIFT remains the dominant global messaging network, the infrastructure surrounding cross-border payments has changed far less than most people realize. In reality, SWIFT still carries limitations from the Telex era, while the backbone of the global economy is restricted to a select number of countries. 

What is SWIFT's problem

Honestly, there really isn't one, unless you happen to operate outside the world’s largest financial corridors.

Moving money within the G20, the system is largely invisible and apparently seamless. The major corridors have deep liquidity, direct banking relationships and competitive pricing. Yet anywhere outside that group, cross-border transactions often remain slow, fragmented and expensive. 

For the remaining countries, the picture is harder. The Bank for International Settlements counted a 22% decline in active correspondents between 2011 and 2019. In North America that decline was 13%, while in Latin America it was 34% and in Pacific countries it reached 60%.

Today, 75% of international transactions pass through intermediaries, involving on average three or four banks. This increases regulatory complexity, leads to frequent delays and adds fees at every bank along the way.

A careful observer might point out that payments are now instant. Maybe they are using an app like Wise to send money to a friend abroad. But what is actually happening beneath the surface is pre-funding: Wise allocates money around the world before the transfer request is made. It looks instant. However, the cost is not. In Brazil, for every $100 million in annual "instant" payments, between $240,000 and $1.25 million is spent on funding.

The underlying principle is surprisingly old: merchants have relied on pre-positioned funds for centuries. Modern technology has changed the interface, not necessarily the settlement model. The same model applied differently because technology evolved. So the problem is not in the technology. It is in the system we chose to keep. 

What are the alternatives to SWIFT

Understanding this as a systems problem and not a software problem, alternatives are being built around the world.

Currently, initiatives shaped by the nearshore geopolitical realignments underway are being developed. China has CIPS, while leading similar projects with the rest of the BRICS bloc. The US has been trying to implement RTP or FedNow across the country. 

Yet the truth is that all of these options are just derivatives of the same principle. A fundamentally different approach is emerging through blockchain-based settlement and stablecoins, where value can move directly on programmable networks instead of relying on chains of correspondent banks.

Where Unblock fits

Unblock provides the infrastructure that enables businesses to use stablecoins as the settlement layer while seamlessly connecting to local payment rails (such as Pix, SPEI, SEPA, ACH and Wire). Through a single API, companies can move money globally without relying on long chains of correspondent banks.