Date: 10 October 2026 Publication Type: Research Project: MaMeeFarm™
Abstract
Cross-border payments are often examined through the currencies used in international trade.
Discussion frequently focuses on the role of the US dollar, the international use of the renminbi, or the changing composition of trade settlement.
Yet currency choice is only one part of the payment system.
Cross-border transactions also depend on financial messaging, institutional access, compliance procedures, clearing arrangements, settlement mechanisms, and available liquidity.
These functions are provided through infrastructures that operate across different jurisdictions.
Traditional correspondent banking remains an important part of international payments. Alongside it, currency-specific systems, regional arrangements, and connections between domestic payment networks are providing additional ways to move financial value across borders.
A recent example is Ecobank’s planned participation in China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, or CIPS.
On 9 October 2026, Reuters reported that Ecobank, a banking group operating across 34 African countries, intends to join CIPS to facilitate renminbi settlement.
The announcement illustrates the expansion of institutional access to another cross-border payment arrangement.
It does not establish that Ecobank has completed its connection, that transaction volumes have already increased, or that existing payment systems are being abandoned.
This distinction is central to understanding payment infrastructure.
The existence of another network does not automatically mean that it is widely used.
Technical connectivity does not guarantee interoperability.
And the ability to settle in a currency does not establish that the currency dominates international trade.
This research examines how cross-border payment infrastructure is becoming more diverse and why institutional access, operational reliability, liquidity, data compatibility, and legal arrangements determine the practical significance of that diversification.
The central finding is:
Alternative cross-border payment infrastructure becomes commercially meaningful when institutions can use additional payment routes reliably, with sufficient liquidity, compatible information, and workable legal and compliance arrangements.
1. Research Question
How is cross-border payment infrastructure becoming more plural, and what determines whether additional payment networks can support reliable international transactions?
The research focuses on payment infrastructure rather than forecasting currency market shares or geopolitical outcomes.
2. Cross-Border Payments Depend on Infrastructure
An international payment can appear simple to the customer.
One institution sends funds, and another institution receives them.
Behind the transaction, however, several functions must be coordinated.
Payment instructions must reach the appropriate institutions.
The parties and transaction may require verification.
Relevant accounts must have sufficient funds.
Clearing and settlement arrangements must operate under applicable rules.
The receiving institution must be able to complete its part of the transaction.
Cross-border payments therefore depend on both technology and financial institutions.
3. Messaging and Settlement Are Different Functions
Financial messaging communicates information and instructions.
Settlement concerns the transfer of financial value that discharges payment obligations under the relevant arrangements.
These functions can be closely connected, but they are not identical.
A payment instruction may travel through one messaging network while the transfer of funds occurs through accounts or settlement arrangements elsewhere.
This distinction is essential when comparing international payment systems.
4. SWIFT and CIPS Perform Different Roles
SWIFT provides widely used financial messaging services and related infrastructure.
CIPS supports cross-border renminbi payment clearing and settlement and includes associated messaging functionality.
The two should not be presented as exact equivalents.
Their services can interact, and the use of one does not automatically exclude the other.
An institution’s participation in CIPS therefore does not establish that it has stopped using SWIFT.
5. Additional Payment Infrastructure Can Coexist With Existing Arrangements
Banks can use several payment arrangements for different purposes.
Correspondent banking may remain appropriate for one transaction.
A currency-specific settlement system may be used for another.
Domestic payment networks may be connected to facilitate particular cross-border services.
The addition of a payment route does not necessarily require the removal of an established route.
Infrastructure diversification can occur through coexistence.
6. Ecobank Illustrates the Expansion of Payment Options
Reuters reported on 9 October 2026 that Ecobank plans to join CIPS to support renminbi settlement.
The development is relevant because Ecobank operates across 34 African countries.
Its regional presence creates the potential for broader access to renminbi payment services.
However, the announcement concerns planned participation.
It does not establish that all Ecobank operations have been connected to CIPS or that customers throughout its network can already use the service.
Those outcomes would require separate operational evidence.
7. Institutional Access Is Not the Same as Usage
A bank can obtain access to a payment arrangement without processing substantial transaction volumes through it.
Actual use depends on customer demand, trade relationships, transaction costs, liquidity, compliance, and operational integration.
An access announcement establishes an institutional development.
It does not, by itself, measure payment activity.
This distinction prevents participation figures from being mistaken for commercial adoption.
8. Usage Does Not Establish Dominance
A network can process growing numbers of transactions while remaining relatively small within the broader international payment system.
Evaluating its significance requires evidence about transaction value, transaction count, currencies, corridors, and the relevant comparison period.
Institutional reach is one measure.
Transaction activity is another.
Neither should be treated automatically as evidence of global dominance.
9. Direct and Indirect Participation Expand Network Reach
CIPS operates with direct and indirect participation arrangements.
Direct participants perform defined functions within the system.
Indirect participants access services through eligible direct participants.
This structure allows institutions to participate through different operational relationships.
It can broaden reach without requiring every institution to maintain the same form of connection.
However, indirect participation also creates dependence on intermediaries.
10. Network Reach Is Not the Same as Settlement Capacity
A payment system may have many participating institutions.
That can increase the number of potential counterparties.
But the ability to process transactions reliably also depends on available liquidity, system operations, legal arrangements, and institutional demand.
A large participant network does not automatically establish the volume or efficiency of actual settlement.
11. Cross-Border Payments Remain More Complex Than Domestic Payments
Domestic payment systems operate within relatively consistent legal, monetary, and institutional environments.
Cross-border payments connect systems established under different national arrangements.
These differences can affect processing speed, cost, transparency, and accessibility.
The G20 cross-border payments programme, supported by the Bank for International Settlements and other international institutions, has identified interoperability, information exchange, and regulatory coordination as important areas for improvement.
12. Interoperability Requires More Than Connectivity
Two payment systems may be technically connected without being fully interoperable.
Institutions may still encounter different data requirements, compliance procedures, operating hours, or settlement rules.
A technical interface allows systems to communicate.
Effective interoperability also requires the information and processes to work together reliably.
This makes payment-system development a coordination challenge.
13. ISO 20022 Supports More Structured Payment Information
ISO 20022 provides a common framework for financial messages.
Its structured information can support more consistent processing, reconciliation, and transaction screening.
The standard has become important to efforts to improve cross-border payments.
However, adopting the same standard does not automatically produce identical implementation across institutions.
14. Common Standards Still Require Harmonisation
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures updated its harmonised ISO 20022 data requirements in February 2026.
The report explains that differences in implementation can limit the benefits of adopting a common messaging standard.
Institutions may interpret or require information differently.
Harmonisation therefore concerns the consistent use of data, not merely the adoption of the same technical specification.
The CPMI encourages alignment with its requirements, which are guidance rather than universally binding regulation.
15. Payment Data Must Preserve Meaning Across Systems
A message can be technically transmitted but still require additional interpretation.
Information about the payer, recipient, purpose, or transaction may be structured differently across institutions.
Inconsistent information can require manual intervention or further verification.
Payment interoperability therefore depends on the quality and consistency of exchanged information.
16. Compliance Is Part of the Payment Process
Cross-border payments operate within requirements concerning customer identification, anti-money-laundering controls, sanctions, and financial reporting.
These requirements can differ between jurisdictions.
A faster payment network does not eliminate them.
Transactions may still be delayed by missing information, additional screening, or regulatory obligations.
Technical processing speed is only one determinant of the time required to complete a payment.
17. Legal Arrangements Matter to Settlement
Financial institutions need certainty about the rules governing transactions.
These can include participation rights, liability, settlement finality, dispute handling, and operational responsibilities.
Payment infrastructure is therefore more than software.
It also consists of legal and institutional arrangements that make the transfer of value dependable.
18. Liquidity Determines Practical Usability
Technical access to a settlement system is not sufficient if a participating institution cannot obtain the currency required to complete payments.
Banks may need funded accounts, foreign-exchange access, or other liquidity arrangements.
A network can be operationally available while a particular transaction remains difficult or costly because of currency funding constraints.
Liquidity is therefore essential to the commercial usefulness of a payment route.
19. Currency Demand and Payment Infrastructure Interact
The availability of a settlement route can reduce operational barriers to using a currency.
However, businesses also consider contractual terms, exchange-rate risk, financing arrangements, and supplier preferences.
Infrastructure can facilitate a currency choice.
It does not determine that choice on its own.
A bank’s ability to settle in renminbi should not be interpreted as evidence that its customers have broadly abandoned other currencies.
20. Payment Infrastructure Does Not Establish Currency Dominance
International currency use includes several distinct activities.
These include trade invoicing, settlement, financing, foreign-exchange transactions, and reserve holdings.
Growth in one activity does not automatically establish growth in every other activity.
The expansion of renminbi settlement infrastructure is therefore a different question from the renminbi’s overall international monetary position.
Research should preserve that distinction.
21. Alternative Payment Networks Can Create Optionality
An additional payment route can give institutions another way to process certain transactions.
This may be valuable when the existing route is expensive, slow, unavailable, or poorly suited to a particular currency or trade corridor.
The benefit depends on whether the alternative is genuinely usable.
A nominally available network offers limited value if access, liquidity, or compliance constraints prevent transactions from being completed.
22. More Networks Do Not Automatically Mean Greater Resilience
Several payment routes can still depend on the same institutions, service providers, or funding sources.
A disruption affecting a shared dependency may affect more than one network.
Alternative routes can also have insufficient capacity to absorb displaced activity.
The number of available systems is therefore not a complete measure of payment resilience.
23. Diversification Can Increase Operational Complexity
Maintaining access to several networks can create additional requirements.
Banks may need to manage different operating rules, technical interfaces, liquidity arrangements, and compliance processes.
These obligations can increase cost.
Infrastructure diversification therefore involves a trade-off between additional options and the complexity of maintaining them.
24. Liquidity Can Become Fragmented
When institutions use several settlement arrangements, they may need to hold or obtain liquidity in different places.
This can increase funding and treasury-management requirements.
The operational benefit of additional payment routes must therefore be evaluated alongside their liquidity costs.
Interoperability and coordination may help address some of these challenges, but their effectiveness depends on system design.
25. Operating Hours Affect Cross-Border Payments
Payment systems in different jurisdictions do not always operate during the same hours.
A transaction may be ready for processing in one market while the relevant system in another market is closed.
Differences in operating schedules can therefore contribute to delays.
The CPMI has examined the extension and alignment of payment-system operating hours as part of cross-border payment improvement.
26. Extended Availability Introduces Additional Requirements
Longer operating hours can reduce waiting periods.
However, extended operations may require additional staffing, liquidity management, cybersecurity coverage, and contingency arrangements.
Continuous technical availability does not automatically guarantee continuous end-to-end payment completion.
Other institutions involved in the transaction must also be able to operate.
27. Domestic Fast-Payment Systems Can Be Connected Across Borders
Some cross-border payment arrangements link domestic fast-payment systems.
This approach can enable payments between participating jurisdictions without requiring a single global replacement network.
The model illustrates how international payment infrastructure can develop through connections between existing systems.
Its practical reach depends on participation rules, supported currencies, compliance arrangements, and available services.
28. Different Connection Models Have Different Trade-Offs
Payment systems can be connected through bilateral arrangements, shared platforms, or common gateways.
These approaches differ in governance, operating complexity, and concentration.
A common platform may simplify some connections while creating dependence on shared infrastructure.
Bilateral arrangements may preserve more local control but require additional coordination as participation expands.
No single model automatically provides the best outcome for every jurisdiction.
29. Shared Infrastructure Can Create Concentration Risk
A common payment hub can reduce the number of separate connections needed between institutions.
However, reliance on a shared hub can also create operational concentration.
Problems affecting the hub may have consequences for multiple connected systems.
Infrastructure efficiency and dependency therefore need to be assessed together.
30. Institutional Access Determines Who Can Participate
Payment networks operate under participation rules.
These rules can determine which institutions connect directly, which must rely on intermediaries, and what obligations apply.
A technically advanced network may have limited economic reach if participation is narrow.
Access arrangements therefore influence the practical distribution of payment services.
31. Non-Bank Institutions Are Also Relevant
Cross-border payment services increasingly involve payment service providers, financial technology companies, and other non-bank participants.
Their roles differ across jurisdictions and systems.
Wider participation can support competition and new services.
It can also require additional supervisory and operational coordination.
The effect depends on the applicable regulatory and institutional arrangements.
32. Governance Supports Network Reliability
Payment systems need rules for participation, security, transaction processing, liability, and dispute resolution.
Institutions must be able to rely on those rules.
Technical capacity alone does not establish that a payment network will be trusted or widely used.
Reliable operation and credible governance are part of the infrastructure itself.
33. Established Networks Have Integration Advantages
Existing payment arrangements benefit from established institutional relationships, operational practices, and user familiarity.
A new route may require additional technology, staff training, compliance configuration, and liquidity arrangements.
Institutions therefore need a commercial or operational reason to adopt it.
The existence of a technically capable alternative is not sufficient evidence that migration will occur.
34. Trade Corridors Influence Payment Demand
Payment infrastructure becomes more relevant when it serves transactions that businesses already need to conduct.
Strong commercial relationships between two regions can create demand for more efficient settlement arrangements.
Ecobank’s planned CIPS participation is relevant in the context of trade and investment relationships between African markets and China.
However, the scale of future use cannot be inferred from those relationships alone.
35. Corridor-Level Evidence Matters
A payment route may be important within a particular trade corridor without accounting for a large share of global payments.
Global comparisons can therefore conceal developments that matter to specific institutions and businesses.
Understanding the practical significance of a payment network requires attention to the transactions and markets it serves.
36. Payment Efficiency Can Affect Trade Costs
More efficient settlement arrangements may reduce intermediary steps, processing delays, or some transaction costs.
These improvements can support international commerce.
However, the existence of another payment rail does not guarantee lower costs for every user.
Actual outcomes depend on fees, currency conversion, compliance, liquidity, and the institutions involved.
37. Cybersecurity Remains Essential
Cross-border payment systems exchange sensitive financial instructions and operate through interconnected institutions.
Additional interfaces can introduce new operational dependencies and security considerations.
Authentication, monitoring, access controls, and incident response remain important.
Greater connectivity can improve services while increasing the need for coordinated security arrangements.
38. Payment Modernisation Is Also a Data-Governance Issue
Structured payment messages can contain detailed information about transaction participants and purposes.
Such information can support processing and compliance.
It also raises questions about confidentiality, retention, data protection, and cross-border information exchange.
Interoperability therefore requires attention to data governance alongside technical compatibility.
39. Payment Systems Operate Across Different Jurisdictions
Countries maintain different monetary, legal, supervisory, and data-governance arrangements.
International payment infrastructure must operate across these differences.
This helps explain why technical standardisation alone cannot resolve every source of friction.
Cross-border payment improvement also requires institutional and regulatory coordination.
40. Infrastructure Development Should Not Be Reduced to Geopolitics
Governments may have strategic reasons to support particular payment systems.
Banks and businesses may also adopt them for commercial reasons.
These include customer demand, settlement efficiency, liquidity access, and transaction cost.
A payment-network decision should therefore not automatically be interpreted as political alignment or monetary realignment.
The available evidence must support the specific conclusion.
41. Ecobank’s Planned CIPS Participation Has a Defined Meaning
The Reuters report establishes an intention to expand access to renminbi settlement infrastructure.
It does not establish that Ecobank has completed implementation across its operations.
It does not quantify new payment volumes.
It does not demonstrate that SWIFT, correspondent banking, or US-dollar settlement has been abandoned.
The defensible conclusion is that an additional institutional payment option is being pursued.
42. What Current Evidence Establishes
The reviewed evidence supports several observations.
Cross-border payments depend on messaging, settlement, liquidity, compliance, and institutional arrangements.
SWIFT and CIPS perform different functions and should not be treated as direct equivalents.
CIPS provides direct and indirect participation arrangements.
Ecobank announced plans to join CIPS in October 2026.
International payment reform continues to focus on interoperability, data standards, access, and legal coordination.
ISO 20022 provides opportunities for more consistent information exchange, but implementation differences remain relevant.
These observations support the conclusion that institutions are developing access to multiple payment arrangements.
43. What Current Evidence Does Not Establish
The reviewed evidence does not establish that:
- CIPS is replacing SWIFT.
- Ecobank has completed its planned connection.
- Planned access is equivalent to actual transaction usage.
- Renminbi settlement access establishes renminbi dominance.
- Participant numbers demonstrate transaction volumes.
- ISO 20022 adoption guarantees interoperability.
- Additional payment routes automatically reduce costs.
- More networks automatically improve resilience.
- Alternative settlement systems eliminate correspondent banking.
- One institutional announcement demonstrates continent-wide monetary realignment.
These claims require additional evidence.
44. Research Implications
The development of cross-border payment infrastructure should be examined separately from changes in currency market share.
Infrastructure determines which transactions institutions can process and under what conditions.
The existence of additional settlement arrangements can increase the range of available options.
But their significance depends on whether those options can be used reliably.
This places attention on institutional participation, information compatibility, liquidity, compliance, and settlement certainty.
It also reveals a broader challenge.
As payment infrastructure becomes more diverse, coordination between systems becomes increasingly important.
45. Research Limitations
This research draws on public evidence available through 10 October 2026.
The Ecobank case is based on Reuters reporting of planned participation.
It is not independently verified as a completed operational integration.
The research does not measure CIPS transaction volumes attributable to Ecobank.
It does not estimate the effect of the announcement on global currency shares.
It does not conduct a quantitative comparison of transaction costs or settlement performance across individual payment networks.
The discussion of interoperability is grounded in BIS and CPMI publications and should be understood as an examination of infrastructure conditions, not a forecast that all payment systems will converge.
46. Research Conclusion
Cross-border payments depend on more than currency choice.
They require institutions, messaging arrangements, compliance processes, clearing and settlement mechanisms, and access to liquidity.
These functions have historically been supported through multiple national and international arrangements.
New connections and additional settlement options can expand the ways institutions conduct cross-border transactions.
Ecobank’s planned participation in CIPS illustrates this development.
The announcement is meaningful because it concerns access to renminbi settlement infrastructure through a banking group with operations across numerous African markets.
However, its significance must remain within the evidence.
Planned participation does not establish completed implementation.
Access does not establish usage.
Usage does not establish dominance.
And an additional payment route does not automatically replace an existing system.
The same caution applies to interoperability.
Common messaging standards can improve information exchange, but effective cross-border processing also depends on compatible implementation, legal arrangements, compliance requirements, liquidity, and operational reliability.
The reviewed BIS and CPMI evidence demonstrates why these issues remain central to international payment reform.
The research therefore reaches a specific conclusion:
The rise of alternative cross-border payment infrastructure is best understood as an expansion of institutional payment options, whose practical importance depends on reliable access, liquidity, interoperability, and actual commercial use.
This does not imply that every new network will achieve scale or that existing arrangements will disappear.
It means that payment infrastructure can become more diverse while remaining interconnected and dependent on common institutional conditions.
The central question is not only which network exists.
It is whether that network can reliably support transactions that institutions and businesses need to complete.
For international commerce, the significance of alternative payment infrastructure lies in its demonstrated usability rather than its existence alone.
References
Reuters. (9 October 2026). Ecobank to join China’s CIPS payments platform for yuan settlement. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/ecobank-join-chinas-cips-payments-platform-yuan-settlement-2026-10-09/
Cross-Border Interbank Payment System. (2026). Business Rules of the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System. https://www.cips.com.cn/en/articleFileDir/2026-05/22/664abd3f8c7c473d9cbf0473b90cdc8a.pdf
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures. (26 February 2026). Harmonised ISO 20022 Data Requirements for Enhancing Cross-Border Payments: Updated Report. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/publications/harmonised-iso-20022-data-requirements-enhancing-cross-border-payments-updated-report
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures. Cross-Border Payments: Stakeholder Engagement. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/committees/cpmi/cross-border-payments/engagement
Bank for International Settlements. CPMI Work Programme 2025–2027. https://www.bis.org/committees/cpmi/work-programme
SWIFT. (27 September 2017). CIPS Membership Information Now Published on SwiftRef. https://www.swift.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/cips-membership-information-now-published-swiftref