> How does SWIFT play with ISO20022, is that the same thing but different message format? The "legacy" SWIFT standard , called MT, was (retroactively) made int

> How does SWIFT play with ISO20022, is that the same thing but different message format? The "legacy" SWIFT standard , called MT, was (retroactively) made into an ISO standard itself - ISO15022. Currently it is expected to coexist with ISO20022 on the same SWIFT network for 5 years, no idea which % of traffic is MT and which is ISO20022 though. So anyway - The SWIFT network can carry either traffic. As to why the SWIFT is not replaced.... it's not _that_ expensive, if you're a bank, and there is a huge network effect: If all your friends (other banks) are on network X, you really want to be there too, even if you maybe don't like too much how it's run and its cost. Additionally, it provides a lot of convenience which would be really painful to reimplement - and it would be massively antieconomic to implement it unless you can spread the cost over as many participants as possible (so you're basically trying to create another SWIFT - and there are already plenty of alternatives, though none with the reach and trust SWIFT offers). Said convenience is, for example, delivery confirmations, ability to replay any message up to 2 months ago, guarantee of every participant (bank)'s identity, non-repudiation. Oh and extreme resilience, which doesn't hurt. But this misses the main value proposition, which I perceive as the trust in the institution: they've been doing exactly this job for longer than I've been alive, they're a neutral operator, simply carrying everybody's traffic and being truthful about what passes through their pipes. If you send a message through SWIFT, you won't be able to deny that, and the banking community will consider you committed to what you wrote. If you denied that you did, SWIFT would be able to replay the message (even without your consent, if coerced by authorities). And they will not agree to "lose" a message you regret sending - their entire value to the banking community would go to 0 in a moment. Finally, they're a cooperative - participating banks actually own a stake, and profits just get redistributed (more or less), so it's not like they are sucking an inordinate amount of money away from the banking system and keeping it to themselves.