Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/04/2020 in all areas

  1. For someone apparently so good at seeing through BS, I'm surprised you took this bait so quickly. They sure got you hook, line and sinker. I think that's why people suspect your motives - you didn't once apply any of your supposedly superior analytical skills to the announcement and identify any issues. If you had done that, you would have found lots of red flags to be worried about. Didn't see any of them? Here, let me help you: How does one "lock" liquidity? No amount of messaging, legal agreements or technology is going to "lock" liquidity unless the requesting bank is given sole and exclusive control over the liquidity of the foreign bank/s they want to lock. Will. Never. Happen. It's a sovereign risk. That's the reason SWIFT became so successful. They didn't try to impinge on nation-state sovereignty. It's also SWIFT's biggest flaw. They're the United Nations of banking and finance. Also, one would need new multilateral agreements with every single correspondent bank and CB participating on the platform to perform this locking function. Do you know how hard it is to reach agreement with a single bank? I do. See you in the Year 3000 if they're planning on signing all 43,000. Ripple's ODL solves these problems. Good luck finding a bank that is happy to share "complete visibility" of their liquidity positions with 43,000 other banks, many of of whom are State owned. Why the need for full visibility? Presumably because there is an issue of trust which RTGS does not solve. Ripple's ODL solves the trust issue. As for liquidity, arbitrage and market prices will help backfill liquidity shortages as will ODL multihop. RTGS has none of that and can never have it because each hop multiplies counterparty risks. Moving on, because this announcement is looking rather silly. This can only occur if all participating banks can satisfy the assumptions of risk-free liquidity locks (they can't) and complete visibility (good luck with that). You can't avoid counterparty credit risk unless you have an immutable record of account. Nick's app doesn't come close and this claim is provably false. Ripple's ODL solves this problem. Liquidity has to come from somewhere - pre-funding isn't the issue. It's the cost of capital associated with maintaining that liquidity in a "lockable" state. Ripple's ODL solves this problem by allowing Money Makers to profit from the provision of liquidity. "dramatically improving commercial cashflows". Dramatically? Any evidence to support that? No? Please read the BIS report (https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d193.pdf) - it identifies a whole raft of frictions that need to be solved. Apparently, this report inspired Nick to build RTGS Global. But the RTGS platform only addresses small parts of several of 19 areas to be addressed. Nick has created an app on Azure. That's it. He's got a very long way to go before his project is real. And to be sure, he's going to need Ripple to be successful because they're the only ones in town actively addressing the BIS and IMF global remittance reports from top to bottom. Without Ripple, Nick and his app are doomed. The desperate ramblings of a consultant on his final legs looking to recreate the success of his youth. Believe me, I've seen it up close.
    32 points
  2. New York-Tokyo distance is 10800Km. The light will take around 72ms to go back and forth and they can do bilateral agreements in only 50ms. They found something faster than light, it's groundbreaking physics .
    13 points
  3. Lending XRP is going to be a thing. Banks can/will simply borrow XRP at 1% and charge 2% to corp clients as access fee to the "international liquidity". I doubt they would expose themselves or their clients to any volatility, Market Makers take that risk exposure and earn a profit/reward from doing so. I dont understand what would be bad about a bunch of banks using an RTGS system for Ripple and/or XRP. Just seems like more banks available to join the real time IoV & RippleNet.
    10 points
  4. That is not the problem, it's who posted it and how he did it, again. The information about potential competition is good. It's about what comes after that. @LetHerRip takes an article, reads half of it and presents it as the end of times in the most aggresive and misleading way. Then he discards every post countering the information as that hurts his goal. He even calls others out for needing to grow braincells and learn to read while he misreads a marketing piece from a ceo and takes it for granted. The worst part is he completely shows his goal by blatantly telling member @Cambridge with certainty it is over for Ripple. He is plain in sight trying to get people out of XRP on false information, under his forever pretence of 'protecting all them dumb sheeple from the liars at Ripple'
    9 points
  5. Doesn't this introduce counterparty risk? Why should banks trust "RTGS Global", a private company? It doesn't matter if it takes just one femtosecond to switch from GBP to "RTGS Global bucks" (or whatever) and then to USD. It's not the time that matters. What matters is that the bank's money is held/custodied by RTGS Global for that tiny fraction of a second. Counterparty risk:- RTGS Global goes rogue RTGS Global goes bust / finds itself in legal trouble RTGS Global skims more than they promised off the final total RTGS Global gets all banks signed up, then changes its policies RTGS Global's systems are hacked There's a reason SWIFT is a society with membership and a network. It removes a single point of failure (or of abuse). ODL removes counterparty risk. It uses open markets. The removal of counterparty risk is the whole F'ing point. Why do you think Ripple have spent so long setting up open market liquidity? Because they know banks won't accept counterparty risk. If this was a true atomic settlement, why are they talking about synthetic central banks? It sounds like counterparty risk and anything but open markets. I might be wrong, but let's see. It does sound like a private company becoming an intermediary between two banks - completely going against SWIFT's philosophy and purpose (which Ripple understand, that's why they're using open markets). It seems this new "system" is built on "Trust us, we won't do anything bad, and our infrastructure is unhackable". It's almost like the entire point of crypto has been missed...
    8 points
  6. This should be clearly explained:- Andrew (representing RTGS Global): "The platform delivers real-time liquidity which is not the same as provides real-time liquidity, or is the source of liquidity. The network participants provide the liquidity, and lets face it, they provide the majority of all the globes liquidity...." Galgitron's reponse: "The promotion of eliminating nostro is misleading. Your transactions result in post-transaction nostro held in foreign accounts in foreign fiat. This creates the same profound capital dilution, distribution and volatility risks as today's nostro system." Why is Andrew being so evasive? His other comment:- "That's a long way of saying yes but also no...Messaging is key, but the infrastructure and capabilities it drives is the important part. Plus, there is more going on than just messaging - but you're right, http://RTGS.global is not in the flow of funds" Mealy-mouthed and unclear.
    7 points
  7. They say themselves it's patent pending so they've not even been granted a patent. All we have is their press release and a few news articles on this, with the (usual) shockingly bad reporting that fails to ask HOW this system moves actual value, and what exactly the counterparty risks are to bank A and bank B. We don't know the details of these highly salient points. All the press release says is the're no counterparty credit risk. All that means is that they can confirm both bank A and B have equal values of currency. This is a trivial message-layer thing. There's no talk of how settlement actually occurs (without nostro/vostro). It seems that central banks are somehow the intermediary in terms of value movement, but it doesn't explain how value is moved from bank A to a central bank, and then that value is moved from the central bank to bank B - all without nostro. However, the counterparty risk is still there using this system:- how secure is the system itself? What if it's compromised? how much trust do the banks have to have for RTGS Global? Why should they trust this private enterprise at all? what about the capability and scaling of the hardware? Why add another layer of potential bottlenecks/failure, all the responsibility of a private company? Having ultimately a single point of failure seems crazy, especially when SWIFT have already mitigated against that. Seems like a step backwards. The only way I can see this working is if central banks and governments have "picked a winner" and they decided RTGS Global are the winner. In that case, then governments/central banks can provide both the liquidity as the "trusted middleman" and all the support toward the "picked winner"....while RTGS Global provide the software. In which case, then that raises a few questions:- how do you get dispirate central banks and governments around the world to get on board with this? imagine the uproar of the entire global banking system having a "picked winner" private company that essentially controls the flow of money around the world. It still doesn't explain how value is actually moved without nostro/vostro or use of an open market. If you need neither of these, then why have SWIFT had to use nostro/vostro all these years? I don't believe it's just "clever software" that enables the movement of value.
    7 points
  8. I tend to agree with your overall premise but disagree on these specific examples. With respect to RTGS global what we have here is a press release about a solution they have designed but are far from delivering. Kinda like LIBRA. Also, as @Pablo outlined above nothing we have seen thus far from RTGS global indicates a threat on ODL. Perhaps XCurrent or perhaps SWIFT GPI. They made an announcement that their patent is pending and that they expect to roll this out commercially "sometime in 2021". I guess we disagree that Ripple have failed to deliver. I see them as being very successful as a company and when they streamlined their product offerings to showcase ODL that assured me they truly had their interests aligned with seeing XRP's utility maximized. We can debate till the cows come home whether that utility results in price appreciation but thats where my bet is and I'm really happy about it. I truly didn't think when I bought XRP in 2017 I'd be retired in 2020 and suspected it could take 6-8 years, lets see. I still like our progress and have heard the latest ODL figures have the team excited about the future. I suppose we may catch a glimpse of why the team is excited in the Q3 report out in 6 weeks or so. The incessant negativity and aggressiveness from several posters leaves me feeling sorry for them. Even if they have somehow found a way to make money, which I doubt, that money won't truly bring happiness. You just won't get a straight answer when you ask them if they are long, on the sidelines or short as of today. Because answering that could leave them proved wrong in the future. Its pure weakness of character and I feel sorry for them. They have to feel they are correct and thats really pretty sad. That negativity seeps into every part of life and happiness will be elusive. I'd like you to know that I see through that BS and that its like water off a ducks back for me and I honestly hope all of that negativity can be channeled into something useful and helpful for you, your families and your community.
    6 points
  9. I have been in business for 40 years Rule one - when something comes for a malicious source don't treat it as truthful, and if you really have to deal with them do it with a long spoon. I strongly recommend "user Ignore" LetHerRip posts are full of gleefull malice. Looking at this story it is immediately obvious there is no digital asset, so it cannot be ODL and has to be some form of correspondent banking Correspondent banking depends of messaging and finding someone willing to buy your foreign currency for their native currency (that is prefunded liquidity) This story (if it is more than a fantasy) is obviously direct competition against SWIFT. From Ripple/XRP's point of view SWIFT has got better at what it does. Nothing in the landscape has changed much
    6 points
  10. It doesn't matter whether the post has valid points or not the intent of OP was to cause fear uncertainty and doubt.
    6 points
  11. Here's my view on it .. RTGS is not new.. it has been greasing domestic payment rails for years. But they've now come up with a process which puts a settlement layer on top of the old correspondent banking system that ensures there is liquidity to fulfil remittances on either side of the border... and also with the intention of keeping the (banker's) gravy train running.. This is how I understand it works ... according to the video here at http://rtgs.global Manufacturer in US at Bank A wants to pay Supplier in UK at Bank B For simplicity let's assume exchange rate is 1:1 for USD and Pounds. Manufacturer/Teller logs into RTGS system with his Account at Bank A Manufacturer/Teller initiates payment of $100K Pounds to Bank B by filling in details and submits via RTGS portal RTGS checks that there are sufficient funds in Bank A's RTGS Settlement account for the required $100K USD and locks this amount at Bank A RTGS Looks into Bank B's RTGS Settlement Account and locks the corresponding $100K Pounds up in preparation for payment. Once RTGS confirms the funds exist on both sides, the portal requests authorization of the payment and terms from Manufacturer (Exchange Rate, Fees etc.) RTGS then unlocks the funds on both sides and switches ownership of the $100K USD RTGS funds held at Bank A to Bank B Bank B now having ownership of the $100K USD funds at Bank A, releases the $100K Pounds to the supplier's own bank account and Supplier walks away with $100K Pounds At the end of all these steps: Manufacturer's bank account decreases by $100K USD (not including fees/costs) Bank B in the UK now owns $100K USD held in their own Bank Account at Bank A Supplier's bank account increases by $100K Pounds. Some Thoughts: It works because control of the remittance is performed within a single network (RTGS) that is aware of the funds available within each bank (as long as each bank participates in the same network). There is no need to pre-fund accounts .. i.e. no need for nostro/vostro because liquidity need only exist in the form of each bank's native currency at time of payment. There is no counter party risk (no Crypto or blockchain required) because funds are pre-confirmed on both sides before Supplier is paid - this is the atomicity property of the transaction The bank to which money is being sent will wind up with as many foreign currency denominated accounts held at each correspondent bank as countries they do business with. They will need to convert these back to their own local currency in order to use for their local operational banking needs. Because banks are still the middleman (no Market Makers required!) and the existing correspondent structure is preserved, this will not be a cheap solution for all consumers .. everyone up and down the line including RTGS needs to be paid . Is this a real competitor for Ripple ? - Definitely Yes (Much better Solution than any of the other competitors that have come and gone since..) People will probably not want to use this for low value transactions because of the relative cost.. Imagine sending $100 overseas with a $50 fee... that would not be very cost effective for the sender. Is this a knockout punch for Ripple ?.. no not necessarily.. In the long run I believe Crypto will be here to stay (because of scarcity, accessibility and because of the endless expansion of FIAT currency). Also, I believe DeFi currently in it's infancy, will eventually elevate and validate the need for digital assets. With respect to cross border remittances I think Ripple Labs saw this coming.. and that was most likely the reason to pivot from High Value/Low Volume Transactions to the Low Value/High Volume space. The only real impact I see is that this will kick the can further down the road and buy some time before the actual revolution happens.. .. but happen it will, because the current financial system is definitely not sustainable in the long run ...
    5 points
  12. I really recommend this video... @LetHerRip you should watch this, if you want a balanced view. Just as you accuse others of being blinded to fact, don't fall into the same trap yourself. You're coming off a little cultish yourself tbh
    5 points
  13. This wins the internet for me. That is EXACTLY what @LetHerRip and his fellow butthurt XRP haters are doing. They saw something that sounded like a winner, bought in and then bitterly complained as it didn’t work out like they hoped. Calling every one who ever said anything good about XRP either a liar or a fanboi. Gleefully gloating anytime they see a downturn or a competing idea. What a life they have.
    5 points
  14. And if this doesn't all pan out over the next two or three years are you going to come back here and endlessly complain about the 'lies'?
    5 points
  15. My analysis of RTGS Global is not very positive. In the 4th revolutionized world, everything will be tokenized. There are already platforms in the defi that enable users to issue their own stable coin with collateral assets. Every merchants will start to issue coupons that work like digital currency to efficiently manage market. It means there will be millions of coins just like there are millions of private websites. Who is going to connect all those coins realtime? Dollar? Dollar is already being abused with speculation. They have to print more dollar just to increase the liquidity which eventually diminishes the value of dollar. Then how can they provide the liquidity to dollar without dimishing the value? By utilizing digital asset. Digital asset provides the liquidity and dollar becomes the measure of value. This is the game plan.(Leveled playing field) Digital asset is needed to free dollar from the speculation, manipulation. Digital asset complements dollar by providing liquidity, interoperability between ledgers This RTGS system does not look like it's suitable for the future. it looks like the system still needs "trust" between the banks. Is this RTGS system here to realize the "level playing field"? No, it just tries to extend the life of old fiat monetary system. Invest in the future, don't look back the past
    5 points
  16. https://u.today/ripple-partner-joins-forces-with-streaming-giant-spotify Ripple partner dLocal to unlock Spotify Premium for unbanked Latin Americans
    4 points
  17. DLT giant Ripple has transferred 19 mln on the XRPL blockchain, meanwhile almost 80 mln XRP have been wired via an Asian ODL corridor that Ripple has not yet mentioned https://u.today/73-mln-xrp-is-sent-through-ripples-unannounced-asian-odl-corridor
    4 points
  18. From where I'm standing, you literally worry more if XRP moons than I care if it goes to zero (and I hold a relatively decent amount of XRP). You should care less. Maybe buy some XRP - might help ameliorate the hatred.
    4 points
  19. Bitcoin nearly completed a classic Head & Shoulders Patter which I've rarely seen with bitcoin. Once the neckline broke it was basically a free fall. The price briefly fell below $10k literally for not even a whole minute but it did break $10k. So we'll see how much of a bounce we get today. Again I see this as a buy the Dip. LTC at $50 ETH at 384 and XRP at .25. Take your pick.
    4 points
  20. This. The liquidity has to come from somwhere. Also Ripple didn't solve this problem. With ODL there is a shift on who is providing liquidity, but some capital has always to be locked to provide this liquidity.
    4 points
  21. I tweeted out your words to Andrew, here's his response https://twitter.com/pucksterpete/status/1301797096593526785
    4 points
  22. This! It's like crypto never happened/has been made redundant the way it's being described here by RTGS Global. It's also like SWIFT's considered setup to NOT rely on one entity has all been waved away too. Trustlessness? Nah don't need it. Counterparty risk? Bring it on, we can use a bit of that. What is this magic that RTGS Global are weaving that they can move value around so frictionlessly and easily that doesn't require either nostro/vostro or open markets or trustless blockchain tech? From what I've read, it's going to be (essentially) a mutable database run by a private business that's intermediating itself between bank A and bank B. I don't see how that's not the case given the reliance on RTGS Global connecting the parties together and its software liasing with bank A, central bank(s), and bank B. As mentioned in my previous comment, I can only think that RTGS Global are the "chosen one" for this to work - where central banks will provide liquidity and governments have picked RTGS Global as the private company that's going to revolutionise banking and the movement of money in general. Just think about that - one private company, no more Internet of Value, protocols, open standards etc. Just proprietary software run by a private entity that every bank must trust. Hmmm.
    4 points
  23. Looks to me BTC is headed to 9500 and we to .225 As long as we can hold those levels and dont drop below, I remain bullish.
    4 points
  24. Oh shiaatttt is right, as in MicroShiaatttt! Microsoft is the King of closed-source BS. A lot of these banks will have to learn the hard way, and rightly so - they deserve to get milked by Microsoft. The old financial system with its free-money printing press is going the way of the dinosaur as is the King of closed-source (patent pending) bullsh*t software, MicroShiaatttt. It's bad enough Microsoft has gotten away with making crap software for so many years, but now they are going to combine their closed source software with the movement of large sums of money!? That's as smart an idea as drinking and driving.
    4 points
  25. From what I've read I think this revolutionary patent pending software probably looks something like this..... SUMIF(bankA has money,bankB wants money)
    4 points
  26. Sounds like Correspondent Banking, except not going through SWIFT. Cant do ODL like this, because the Liquidity has to already be provisioned at the destination bank and the sending bank. So those two banks would have a direct relationship. I'm not sure many folks fully understand how the "network effect" that Ripple is building works for banks, but correspondent banking will not create the same network effect, even with 1 million banks using it. It is still a bunch of bilateral connections, rather than a hub & spoke model like XRP as a bridge currency which puts any two currencies only 2 hops away from each other. but idk, I heard Brad G was letting everyone go at the end of the month, and they were trying to wind down RippleNet by the end of the year. Rumor has it, he is going back to Yahoo, and never really believed in Ripple anyway. Obviously Correspondent banking methods are the winner, so there is no real need for XRP or blockchains at all. BTC is also supposed to be shutting down by the end of the year, but computer manufacturers are going to start using it to replace the gold parts in their computers, so its all good.
    4 points
  27. @LetHerRip did xrp run off with your wife? What do you hate about them? Did you buy and sell emotionally? Is that it 😅
    3 points
  28. @LetHerRip comes across as someone dumping his pain onto others. His Harold-hide-the-pain avatar is highly suitable me thinks.
    3 points
  29. Please don't lie, I'd love it if you and the rest of the XRP cult bought more XRP. Rekktttttttt P.S. the information isn't false either but you would need a brain in your head instead of this to see it
    3 points
  30. 3 points
  31. Everything including the kitchen sink was thrown at the price to drop it briefly below $10k.
    3 points
  32. I mean, who knows right? But these are the targets and supports that I saw a few weeks ago and I'm not going to get caught up in the emotions and start projecting things differently. It's funny, we always lament that we would like something to drop so we can buy more at "X price" but, when it actually falls to that price, all of a sudden you don't want it anymore and are expecting more of a drop. I try hard to control emotions. I have settled my mind that digital currencies are going to be in for a hell of a run over the next few years as the security of fiat is destroyed and I'm sticking with that. If correct, quibbling between $9800 and $10100 is going to look silly when BTC is trading in 6 figures. If it drops more, I'll buy more. Done.
    3 points
  33. The OP made a very valid post, evidenced by the productive debate that’s being had now. I fail to see why people keep calling things like this FUD. We can’t just be one sided and ignore these things, that does nobody any good.
    3 points
  34. happy I sold , will rebuy in some days
    3 points
  35. LetHerRip is such an arrogant, smelly piece of garbage. I'll believe this tech when I see it. It sounds to me like a last gasp to hold onto legacy giants and the power they hold over all other players. Good piece of FUD, though.
    3 points
  36. Wow. banks can now send encrypted messages to each other in 300 millisecond over a network. How revolutionary. I have been doing this in my job since 1998.
    3 points
  37. "Available" to 43K banks, not on-boarded banks yet, or even any mention of estimates of those intending to utilize it. A key question is that of the necessary software, what's involved in it's integration, (how long, how hard and how seamless?) and significantly, the usage fees. A strong competitor; or ultimately even the "winner;" quite possibly; but at this point it's only an initial stages announcement, and it won't be until "Autumn" that we have any real idea of what the scope of this announcement will ultimately mean. The ability to integrate with existing infrastructure and the associated fees for using this system are yet to be known. Additionally, this would have little to do with remittances for the unbanked of the world, therefore, in this regard they wouldn't be a competitor to Ripple or xrp. I've always had a very negative view on your incessant, troll-like, FUD posts, however, as counterintuitive as this might sound, I actually like this one as it's got some substance to it. I'm always open to legitimate information, be it good or bad, therefore, dare I say it, thanks for your post.
    3 points
  38. https://rtgs.global/news/rtgs-global-unveils-its-network-to-transform-international-payments-making-interbank-liquidity-visible-for-the-first-time London, UK: 3 September 2020: RTGS Global, the world’s first cross-border liquidity network has launched Stage one of its operational rollout. RTGS Global has collaborated with Microsoft to develop a transformative new system which enables banks to gain complete visibility of liquidity between their counterparties, for the first time. Built on Microsoft Azure, RTGS.global promises to completely overhaul the machinery of correspondent banking. The network safeguards existing commercial banking relationships, but will change the way they work – in many cases moving from what today still involves manual processing – to one that materially improves efficiency, reduces costs and enables a new level of customer service to be delivered. RTGS Global, the brainchild of Nick Ogden, fintech entrepreneur and founder of WorldPay and ClearBank, brings the benefits and transparency of real-time domestic gross settlement to a global level, delivering instant transactional integrity, security, risk reduction and settlement finality. RTGS Global enables atomic settlement across both commercial and central banks, authenticating the exchange of funds between banks based on the real-time availability of liquidity. Through its patent pending Liquidity Lock, Lock and Block system, RTGS Global locks available liquidity at two counterparty banks, before sending a Liquidity Block message to complete the transaction. This whole process can take just 50 milliseconds to complete, enabling real-time, bilateral settlement of funds. (No Blockchain or XRP necessary) The result is RTGS.global, an international system that transforms the challenges of legacy correspondent banking and international banking. Settlement and counterparty credit risk become non-existent; there’s no need to pre-fund a nostro account; and 24/7/365 availability drastically improves the end customer experience dramatically improving commercial cashflows. Delivery of stage one is the first step in making the RTGS Global network available to 43,300 banks globally. Stage two, the technical integration involving Azure, will commence in autumn this year.
    2 points
  39. https://u.today/can-xrp-fit-in-christine-lagardes-vision-of-eus-future-economy-ripple-ceo-might-just-think-so Recently, Christine Lagarde has described a technology crucial to the EU's future economy and it matched the description of XRP; it also got Ripple CEO's attention
    2 points
  40. It's a clever idea because the banks do not want to use cryptocurrency. They will try to make this work as much as possible because it is in their interests plus it makes them look as if they are doing something to bring down the costs and friction. Why is the US SEC not giving clarity to cryptocurrencies and XRP in particular? Is it because they want to delay adoption so that more solutions like this can come through and stop the tide of something they cannot control - I think, within the government, it is more like keep the status quo for as long as they can because of ignorance of the potential and the threats from outside. The East will not wait for the USA to sort themselves out - they are eager to take the fight to the establishment and ODL is their opportunity to grow. This is going to get increasing interesting
    2 points
  41. While I see where you’re coming from and understand what you mean, he’s just stating his opinion, which is his right. We don’t have to call him a FUDster or insult him for it. We all have our views. Fighting with him in the first place leads to fruitless, endless debate about the he said she said finger pointing instead of focusing on the good parts of his post. He presents it in a way that ticks a lot of people off. Oh well. We can all choose to ignore the part that doesn’t contribute to healthy debate instead of starting a fight that leads nowhere productive. This thread, in the end, ended up being productive because more info about what the OP presented was dug up, investigated and some fruitful information was brought up.
    2 points
  42. ^ No one is calling this FUD, just pointing out it's from a butthurt fudster is all. It's a valid thing to look at the sources of information as well the evidence.
    2 points
  43. I went through a few Odgen's presentations. It's similar to Ripplenet but not exactly the same. 1) So RTGS Global came up with proprietary software distributed on Microsoft Azure cloud servers. Banks will have to log in to the servers and use the software, I imagine. Bank A and Bank B want to transact, so the software verifies the liquidity for the amounts in both banks, then locks up that liquidity in to a block, one for each party and when the transaction is given the green light, the software swaps ownership of the locked up amounts, (in milliseconds) then I think writes the transaction to some ledger for regulators if they need to audit whenever. As far as I know there's no mention of swapping into a digital asset like XRP etc, all they say is that the software swaps ownership of the currencies which are locked up in what they call blocks. How exactly they don't say nor how they verify immutability, etc etc. He says they have patents on the software so no one will know except them likely, closed source. 2) As for exchange of value, I think Ripple still has plenty going for it. RTGS Global made no mention of swapping anything except currency that the bank holds. They don't say if they're capable of swapping other assets, like XRP can in the counterparty field. So far they seem to only be interested in banks/central banks. They also don't mention removing correspondent banks from the system, though I don't know why you would need one if they can directly swap their "blocks of locked liquidity". Nor do they mention how they'd swap weird currency pairs that major banks might not have in their holdings, like how many US banks hold Lebanese pounds or Zimbabwe dollars on their books? 3) They only say they've been going around to banks, IMF, etc to see how regulation will work, not a lot else. Personally I think there is still plenty of room for Ripplenet and XRP. Will this system be able to transfer any or all cryptos/digital assets between banks? They make no mention of it so I can't comment. With OCC saying banks can now custody cryptos, RTGS Global is going to NEED that, no questions asked, to compete with XRP. That they haven't made mention of any digital assets like BTC, XRP, etc. nor the ability to swap them makes me think they haven't really thought about that, unless I'm missing something, or else they would have come out and said so in their presentations as a selling point. Their software simply verifies the amounts are present in both banks, locks them up and then swaps ownership of the currencies, according to them. I, as a person, wouldn't be able to transact through RTGS Global, so far it's strictly bank to bank. It's a very focused use case unless they're planning to expand down the road.
    2 points
  44. 2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.