Back to Comparisons
HEAD-TO-HEAD

RENSNCE VS International Wire Transfers (SWIFT)

TradFi Sector
Legacy Approach

International Wire Transfers (SWIFT)

TradFi Approach

3-5 business days to settle. Opaque correspondent banking fees. $50+ per transaction. Cut off entirely for certain countries.

Structural Flaws

  • Manual, periodic reporting (Quarterly/Annual)
  • Compliance is post-trade & reactive
  • Assets trapped in siloed databases
Renaissance Approach

RENSNCE DAO

Renaissance Approach

MKVLI transfers settle in seconds. Fees are measured in cents, not dollars. No correspondent banks. No arbitrary exclusions. Anyone with internet access can participate in the global economy.

The RENSNCE Standard

  • Real-Time Reporting: Audit-grade data, block by block.
  • Automated Compliance: Rules enforced by smart contract code.
  • Asset Fluidity: Tokenized for instant, global liquidity.

Performance Benchmarks

Settlement Speed
TUCInternational Wire Transfers (SWIFT)
Decentralization
TUCInternational Wire Transfers (SWIFT)
RWA Integration
TUCInternational Wire Transfers (SWIFT)
Cost Efficiency
TUCInternational Wire Transfers (SWIFT)

Related Comparisons

VS
Traditional Bonds

Debt instruments issued by governments or corporations. They are illiquid, slow to settle (T+2), and accessible mainly to large institutions.

VS
Venture Capital

Gatekeepers of innovation. A small group of partners decides who gets funding, often based on bias and closed networks.

VS
Traditional Banking

Brick-and-mortar institutions with limited hours, high fees, and geographic barriers. The unbanked remain unbanked because access requires an address, a credit history, and a minimum balance.