Jump to content

enrique11

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    1,912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from Goga in Question for David Schwartz: If XRP Hit $5, Would Liquidity Be Enough for Holders of Over 30k XRP?   
    It's a silly hypothetical question dealing in absolutes: 
    “If XRP hit $5, would there be enough liquidity in the market for all of those people who own over 30,000 coins to cash out?”
    The common-sense answer is, "No!" because XRP hitting $5 means a temporary market cap of 2 trillion USD for XRP, which is over 8x larger than the current cumulative market caps on coinmarketcap.com of all 5,474 cryptos, and what are the odds that "Everyone who owns 30,000+ XRP will try to cash out at [exactly] $5."?  The selling pressure of everyone with 30,000+ XRP trying to sell at exactly $5 would drop buying pressure very quickly because the vast majority of hodlers are in the 30,000+ XRP ownership range, and what are the odds that you have a counter-pressure of buy orders at $5 to balance out that selling pressure?  If current proportions of XRP ownership stay the same, that means over 95% of all non-escrowed XRP. would try to be sold off at $5.   That's an extremely large sell wall at $5. 
    The answer is, "Next to zero." in a literal sense, or infinitesimally small odds. 
    A sensible way to phrase this question is, "If XRP hits $5 would those people remaining who own 30,000+ XRP in non-escrowed accounts and are able to sell (no restrictions like Ripple partners, Jed, etc.) and want to cash out at $5 be able to cash out?" 
    Then you get much better odds and a much more sensible answer that is not definitively, "No!"
    And if you rephrase it to, "If XRP hits $5 would those people remaining who own 30,000+ XRP in non-escrowed accounts and are able to sell (no restrictions like Ripple partners, Jed, etc.) and want to cash out at $5 be able to cash out eventually?" 
    The odds just keep getting better if Ripple succeeds with its plans, but this makes XRP sound more like security, so lol, we just need more and more 3rd parties independent of Ripple to keep building on top of XRP. 
     
  2. Like
    enrique11 reacted to jargoman in Ripple Lawsuit: Fraud allegations dropped, Brad Garlinghouse still not out of the woods   
    I like the statement from Clayton saying all securities could be issued on the blockchain one day. Could they Mr. Clayton? Are you giving us permission?

    Imagine hiring a farmer and asking if he planted the seeds and his answer was, "I'm not going to comment at this time", then months later you ask, "well did you or not" and he said "We could have a harvest one day"

    Christine Lagarde - I expected regulations, like yesterday
    Jay Clayton - One day

    All men could be created equal one day -- Abraham Lincoln. 

    We should go to the moon one day -- John F Kennedy. 

    Someone should invent a lightbulb one day -- Thomas Edison


     
  3. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from Pablo in ripple smart contract codius, stellar smart contract SEPX, vs built-in smart contract EVM.   
    Coil is a web-monetization platform that uses a proposed real-time web-streaming monetization standard (API) created by Coil.  It's not a crypto, token, nor smart-contract platform, nor a decentralized network like those found in cryptos. 
    I'm not aware if this platform allows for smart contracts - I haven't read this anywhere, but then again, I didn't search for that specifically. 
    Currently, Coil's web-browser API interacts via ILP to allow for the streaming of micropayments in real-time in any fiat denomination or XRP from a content consumer to a content creator on a per-second (of time) cost basis of content consumption.  Coil allows use of its real-time streaming service via its API for a monthly subscription fee of 5 USD.
    The thing I find odd about Coil is that the monthly subscription fee is paid by content consumers, when instead it should be content providers that should be paying for this service, but since there is lack of demand for this service at the moment, why should content providers pay for it?  It's  us "investors" that need to bootstrap this service before there is sufficient demand from content creators I suppose ;P, which means if you want to contribute $$ to your favorite content creator, you have to first subscribe $5/month for this streaming-service, and then a portion of your monthly subscription fee gets streamed to your favorite content creators in real-time based on how much of their content you consume on a 'per second of time basis' I suppose.   This is a very odd monetization model wherein the consumer has to spend extra money on a montly subscription and time just to pay for content they might want only occasionally.  It better be really good content; otherwise, I see no incentive for consumers to go out of their way to pay a monthly subscription fee to consume content, unless it were something like Netflix, for example, and you only want to watch occasionally, and you pay only when you watch and pay only for every second you consume on-demand real-time consumption without a subscription - I would be willing to pay for that -  if the cost is significantly better than renting a streaming movie for a 24-hour period and paying a fixed cost for it.  If it's a premium movie, you could boost the per-second rate of payment a little higher, but you should be quoted an hourly cost or the cost of the entire product (e.g., movie) based on the type of content you are consuming - not all content is created equal- so you know the difference between watching premium content or HD content vs less-desired or SD content, etc.
     The content creators are not required to pay a membership fee, so this is an odd business model unless the content and unit price (per second) are so good that it is significantly better in both respects than any other conventional payment methods and costs for the same content. 
     OK, I'm guessing again at this sh*t because there is a lot of technical jargon involved, but this is what I put together based on a lot of contradicting info I've read about Coil in the last hour or so, so take it with a grain of salt.   
    Also, I should actually try subscribing to Coil before writing all this sh*t because I really don't understand what content they are talking about until I try it.
     
  4. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from Julian_Williams in Chris Larsen talks at Blockchain Summit   
    They somehow think crypto pose a threat to the legacy financial world...the US is in for a very rude awakening because of our ignorant politicians and their focus on keeping the US dollar in the lead through legacy means.
  5. Haha
    enrique11 got a reaction from jetbrzzz in Ripple Lawsuit: Fraud allegations dropped, Brad Garlinghouse still not out of the woods   
    When it comes to crytos, I put on a tin-foil hat too sometimes.  What did we get out of the SEC after all these years?!  That bitcoin isn't a security.  What a waste of our time. 
  6. Like
    enrique11 reacted to jetbrzzz in Ripple Lawsuit: Fraud allegations dropped, Brad Garlinghouse still not out of the woods   
    Someone did say it was more a precedent-type case, which I guess would warrant a higher court cause the monetary damages certainly didn't. Wouldn't that be some 5D chess if Coffey turned out to be a Ripple mole, filing a 100%-can't-win case to get the precedent set, where's my tin-foil hat?
    That's the genius of 'Nonoymous Nakamoto, just disappear into the night and you'll never get sued by anyone. How do you kill the man who doesn't exist?
  7. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from stickynoodle69 in CBDC's / Stable coins - why do we need XRP for these?   
    CBDC's are for governments to have control over and issue, to regulate their supply and demand and thus affect their value, to allow the government some control over the economic state of their country, to use internally among their various federal agencies to allow those agencies to make payments among themselves and to others either domestically or internationally.  Governments can't do that using XRP.  They don't have control over supply and demand of XRP, and besides, it's a third-party solution not built for, maintained by, and controlled by the government, so those are other reason for them not to use it.
    You just can't delete and create currencies, that would affect the value of one currency via deflation (whenever you 'delete') and decrease the value of the other currency via inflation (whenever you 'create'), affecting domestic economic policies unintentionally by affecting the values of their currencies.  You could do the next best thing which is to exchange one currency for another, but there are almost two hundred countries,  If they're 3 people using three native currencies, then a<>b, a<>c, b<>c can exchange, but if there are four currencies, then we have the following possible exchanges/swaps: a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  It's not 4 possible exchanges like in the case of 3 currencies, but it's 6:  3+2+1=6, so for 195 countries we have 19,110 possible pairwise-exchange of currencies provided each country has only one native currency. Now let's go back to the 3 people case but introduce a fourth currency so we have a 4-currency exchange situation, except this time the fourth currency is nation-neutral and owned or controlled by no single government - just a pool of currency that everyone decides to use as a medium of exchange for their native currencies. Let's call this fourth currency 'x', then the possible exchanges among the three currencies are a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; b<>x, x<>c.  You have twice as many possible exchanges of currencies, but these compound exchanges I listed in order previously are equivalent to the exchanges made without the fourth currency (a<>b, a<>c, b<>c), but all possible exchanges of fiat currency in the 3 people/county 3 native currency scenario.  Now let's go to case where you have 4 people and 5 currencies. Then the possible exchanges of fiat currencies using currency 'x' are  a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; a<>x, x<>d; b<>x, x<>c; b<>x, x<>d; c<>x, x<>d.  12 exchanges or 6 compound exchanges and the 6 compound exchanges are equivalent to the 6 original currency swaps:  a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  So, things look more complicated now because you're doing twice as many exchanges by introducing a new currency instead of half the number of swaps you had originally.  So where's the advantage in this?
    Well, think of the x pool as a telephone system and a MM (market maker) as a 'telephone operator' that makes a call from a to b and vice versa possible or and exchange of voice data between 'a' and 'b': a<>b.  You don't need 19,110 separate 'connections' for 'communication' to occur between 195 different countries because there is a company that decided to creates a switching network called 'operator x' that holds currencies from all countries including it's own native currency 'x'. person 'a' connects to operator 'x', operator 'x' connects to person 'b', so 'a' and 'b' can 'communicate' or exchange voice information (a<>b). Now, instead of needing 19,110 separate connections, you only need each person/country to connect to operator/pool x.  Still you have twice as many exchanges as before, in compound form, but only 195 connections are needed c1<>x, c2<>x, ..., c195 <>x.  So you have the same amount of money available but using far less exchanges, so you have a lot more money to distribute among far less connections, so you greatly increase the potential liquidity among these far less connections in number, allowing for a much greater potential to do exchanges on demand without the currencies losing or gaining significant value. Say the total value of all currencies of the 195 countries is 1,000,000 USD, just using a small number for example.  If that value were distributed evenly among pairwise exchanges, each exchange pool of the 19,110 for pairwise exchange would only have $26 dollars available on average on each side of the 19,110 trading connections for exchange purposes, but let's suppose that 1,000,000 USD were divided equally between the 'x' pool and 195 countries (with 'x' pool holding a significant portion of currencies from 195 countries as well as a significant amount of value of currency 'x'), then this would provide up to approximately 99 times the amount and value than is available in the pairwise exchange case.
    lol...this is just my opinion...using 'my' math and logic, so someone will have to verify the math and logic.  
     
    Note: It has up to 99x the value of pairwise exchanges of currencies (pairwise connections) pot because half the pot of one million goes to 195 countries and the other half goes to 'x' pool in the form of 195 currencies + xrp.  Which means each country has 2564 USD in possession to trade. They have up to 99x potential of trading amount and value if they use 100% for trading.  Say each country uses only 10% of 2564 USD for trading internationally - that's still almost 10 times the amount that would be available for trading on average at 100% capacity of $26/each side of trading connection/pool of the 19,110 pairwise trading possibilities. 
     
  8. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from VanGogh in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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.
  9. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from aavkk in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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.
  10. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from DannyRipple in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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.
  11. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from VanHasen in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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.
  12. Like
    enrique11 reacted to Julian_Williams in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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
  13. Haha
    enrique11 reacted to LetHerRip in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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

     
  14. Haha
    enrique11 reacted to LetHerRip in Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)   
    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.
  15. Thanks
    enrique11 got a reaction from panmores in CBDC's / Stable coins - why do we need XRP for these?   
    CBDC's are for governments to have control over and issue, to regulate their supply and demand and thus affect their value, to allow the government some control over the economic state of their country, to use internally among their various federal agencies to allow those agencies to make payments among themselves and to others either domestically or internationally.  Governments can't do that using XRP.  They don't have control over supply and demand of XRP, and besides, it's a third-party solution not built for, maintained by, and controlled by the government, so those are other reason for them not to use it.
    You just can't delete and create currencies, that would affect the value of one currency via deflation (whenever you 'delete') and decrease the value of the other currency via inflation (whenever you 'create'), affecting domestic economic policies unintentionally by affecting the values of their currencies.  You could do the next best thing which is to exchange one currency for another, but there are almost two hundred countries,  If they're 3 people using three native currencies, then a<>b, a<>c, b<>c can exchange, but if there are four currencies, then we have the following possible exchanges/swaps: a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  It's not 4 possible exchanges like in the case of 3 currencies, but it's 6:  3+2+1=6, so for 195 countries we have 19,110 possible pairwise-exchange of currencies provided each country has only one native currency. Now let's go back to the 3 people case but introduce a fourth currency so we have a 4-currency exchange situation, except this time the fourth currency is nation-neutral and owned or controlled by no single government - just a pool of currency that everyone decides to use as a medium of exchange for their native currencies. Let's call this fourth currency 'x', then the possible exchanges among the three currencies are a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; b<>x, x<>c.  You have twice as many possible exchanges of currencies, but these compound exchanges I listed in order previously are equivalent to the exchanges made without the fourth currency (a<>b, a<>c, b<>c), but all possible exchanges of fiat currency in the 3 people/county 3 native currency scenario.  Now let's go to case where you have 4 people and 5 currencies. Then the possible exchanges of fiat currencies using currency 'x' are  a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; a<>x, x<>d; b<>x, x<>c; b<>x, x<>d; c<>x, x<>d.  12 exchanges or 6 compound exchanges and the 6 compound exchanges are equivalent to the 6 original currency swaps:  a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  So, things look more complicated now because you're doing twice as many exchanges by introducing a new currency instead of half the number of swaps you had originally.  So where's the advantage in this?
    Well, think of the x pool as a telephone system and a MM (market maker) as a 'telephone operator' that makes a call from a to b and vice versa possible or and exchange of voice data between 'a' and 'b': a<>b.  You don't need 19,110 separate 'connections' for 'communication' to occur between 195 different countries because there is a company that decided to creates a switching network called 'operator x' that holds currencies from all countries including it's own native currency 'x'. person 'a' connects to operator 'x', operator 'x' connects to person 'b', so 'a' and 'b' can 'communicate' or exchange voice information (a<>b). Now, instead of needing 19,110 separate connections, you only need each person/country to connect to operator/pool x.  Still you have twice as many exchanges as before, in compound form, but only 195 connections are needed c1<>x, c2<>x, ..., c195 <>x.  So you have the same amount of money available but using far less exchanges, so you have a lot more money to distribute among far less connections, so you greatly increase the potential liquidity among these far less connections in number, allowing for a much greater potential to do exchanges on demand without the currencies losing or gaining significant value. Say the total value of all currencies of the 195 countries is 1,000,000 USD, just using a small number for example.  If that value were distributed evenly among pairwise exchanges, each exchange pool of the 19,110 for pairwise exchange would only have $26 dollars available on average on each side of the 19,110 trading connections for exchange purposes, but let's suppose that 1,000,000 USD were divided equally between the 'x' pool and 195 countries (with 'x' pool holding a significant portion of currencies from 195 countries as well as a significant amount of value of currency 'x'), then this would provide up to approximately 99 times the amount and value than is available in the pairwise exchange case.
    lol...this is just my opinion...using 'my' math and logic, so someone will have to verify the math and logic.  
     
    Note: It has up to 99x the value of pairwise exchanges of currencies (pairwise connections) pot because half the pot of one million goes to 195 countries and the other half goes to 'x' pool in the form of 195 currencies + xrp.  Which means each country has 2564 USD in possession to trade. They have up to 99x potential of trading amount and value if they use 100% for trading.  Say each country uses only 10% of 2564 USD for trading internationally - that's still almost 10 times the amount that would be available for trading on average at 100% capacity of $26/each side of trading connection/pool of the 19,110 pairwise trading possibilities. 
     
  16. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from xrphilosophy in CBDC's / Stable coins - why do we need XRP for these?   
    CBDC's are for governments to have control over and issue, to regulate their supply and demand and thus affect their value, to allow the government some control over the economic state of their country, to use internally among their various federal agencies to allow those agencies to make payments among themselves and to others either domestically or internationally.  Governments can't do that using XRP.  They don't have control over supply and demand of XRP, and besides, it's a third-party solution not built for, maintained by, and controlled by the government, so those are other reason for them not to use it.
    You just can't delete and create currencies, that would affect the value of one currency via deflation (whenever you 'delete') and decrease the value of the other currency via inflation (whenever you 'create'), affecting domestic economic policies unintentionally by affecting the values of their currencies.  You could do the next best thing which is to exchange one currency for another, but there are almost two hundred countries,  If they're 3 people using three native currencies, then a<>b, a<>c, b<>c can exchange, but if there are four currencies, then we have the following possible exchanges/swaps: a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  It's not 4 possible exchanges like in the case of 3 currencies, but it's 6:  3+2+1=6, so for 195 countries we have 19,110 possible pairwise-exchange of currencies provided each country has only one native currency. Now let's go back to the 3 people case but introduce a fourth currency so we have a 4-currency exchange situation, except this time the fourth currency is nation-neutral and owned or controlled by no single government - just a pool of currency that everyone decides to use as a medium of exchange for their native currencies. Let's call this fourth currency 'x', then the possible exchanges among the three currencies are a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; b<>x, x<>c.  You have twice as many possible exchanges of currencies, but these compound exchanges I listed in order previously are equivalent to the exchanges made without the fourth currency (a<>b, a<>c, b<>c), but all possible exchanges of fiat currency in the 3 people/county 3 native currency scenario.  Now let's go to case where you have 4 people and 5 currencies. Then the possible exchanges of fiat currencies using currency 'x' are  a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; a<>x, x<>d; b<>x, x<>c; b<>x, x<>d; c<>x, x<>d.  12 exchanges or 6 compound exchanges and the 6 compound exchanges are equivalent to the 6 original currency swaps:  a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d.  So, things look more complicated now because you're doing twice as many exchanges by introducing a new currency instead of half the number of swaps you had originally.  So where's the advantage in this?
    Well, think of the x pool as a telephone system and a MM (market maker) as a 'telephone operator' that makes a call from a to b and vice versa possible or and exchange of voice data between 'a' and 'b': a<>b.  You don't need 19,110 separate 'connections' for 'communication' to occur between 195 different countries because there is a company that decided to creates a switching network called 'operator x' that holds currencies from all countries including it's own native currency 'x'. person 'a' connects to operator 'x', operator 'x' connects to person 'b', so 'a' and 'b' can 'communicate' or exchange voice information (a<>b). Now, instead of needing 19,110 separate connections, you only need each person/country to connect to operator/pool x.  Still you have twice as many exchanges as before, in compound form, but only 195 connections are needed c1<>x, c2<>x, ..., c195 <>x.  So you have the same amount of money available but using far less exchanges, so you have a lot more money to distribute among far less connections, so you greatly increase the potential liquidity among these far less connections in number, allowing for a much greater potential to do exchanges on demand without the currencies losing or gaining significant value. Say the total value of all currencies of the 195 countries is 1,000,000 USD, just using a small number for example.  If that value were distributed evenly among pairwise exchanges, each exchange pool of the 19,110 for pairwise exchange would only have $26 dollars available on average on each side of the 19,110 trading connections for exchange purposes, but let's suppose that 1,000,000 USD were divided equally between the 'x' pool and 195 countries (with 'x' pool holding a significant portion of currencies from 195 countries as well as a significant amount of value of currency 'x'), then this would provide up to approximately 99 times the amount and value than is available in the pairwise exchange case.
    lol...this is just my opinion...using 'my' math and logic, so someone will have to verify the math and logic.  
     
    Note: It has up to 99x the value of pairwise exchanges of currencies (pairwise connections) pot because half the pot of one million goes to 195 countries and the other half goes to 'x' pool in the form of 195 currencies + xrp.  Which means each country has 2564 USD in possession to trade. They have up to 99x potential of trading amount and value if they use 100% for trading.  Say each country uses only 10% of 2564 USD for trading internationally - that's still almost 10 times the amount that would be available for trading on average at 100% capacity of $26/each side of trading connection/pool of the 19,110 pairwise trading possibilities. 
     
  17. Haha
    enrique11 reacted to baggy23 in CBDC's / Stable coins - why do we need XRP for these?   
    "simplicity is your best friend"
     
    edit: sorry I don't want to be rude. thanks for your opinion
  18. Thanks
    enrique11 reacted to LeonidasH in Ripple lawsuits consolidated. Ripple’s motion to dismiss fraud allegations taken under submission.   
    Less than a month after moving the Simmons v Ripple Labs lawsuit from New York to California, the case has been consolidated with the on-going Zakinov v Ripple Labs lawsuit in California. At the same time, the honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton has taken Ripple’s motion to dismiss the fraud allegations under submission.
    https://www.xrparcade.com/news/ripple-lawsuits-consolidated-ripples-motion-to-dismiss-fraud-allegations-taken-under-submission/
  19. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from 3GO3D in When Wheels Fly (Galgitron's August Rant)   
    Cryptos succeeding in the public sector will get the FIs off their @sses verrrry quickly.  So, the sooner this space succeeds, the better XRP, XLM looks to FIs to survive this basic transition from legacy financial world to new crytpo financial world They will still be old tech because of all the physical infrastructure that comes with traditional FIs - so much overhead for maintenance of legacy infrastructure.   Those legacy FIs that don't see the spelling on the wall will have wished they looked into cryptos sooner. I'm sure a number of them will die off for lacking the foresight to see the coming change globally.
  20. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from sproutseas in With $16bn in cryptocurrency, Ripple attempts a reset   
    The make a lot of reasonable valid points in the article.  I still think XRP has only one use case - as a bridging currency for currency swaps (fiat or otherwise). 
    This single use case can manifest itself in various forms.  They should focus on new use cases that legacy systems can't touch, and start off with a niche market while continuing to onboard banks with their Ripple products, so when the crypto sh*t hits the fan, the banks won't be caught off guard and they will be able to keep up with the new cryptographic financial system. 
  21. Haha
    enrique11 reacted to EcneitapLatnem in With $16bn in cryptocurrency, Ripple attempts a reset   
    But you're not just "strolling along".... you're "trolling along"....
  22. Haha
  23. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from Julian_Williams in With $16bn in cryptocurrency, Ripple attempts a reset   
    The make a lot of reasonable valid points in the article.  I still think XRP has only one use case - as a bridging currency for currency swaps (fiat or otherwise). 
    This single use case can manifest itself in various forms.  They should focus on new use cases that legacy systems can't touch, and start off with a niche market while continuing to onboard banks with their Ripple products, so when the crypto sh*t hits the fan, the banks won't be caught off guard and they will be able to keep up with the new cryptographic financial system. 
  24. Thanks
    enrique11 reacted to StrangeDays in With $16bn in cryptocurrency, Ripple attempts a reset   
    https://cryptoupcoming.com/2020/08/with-16bn-in-cryptocurrency-ripple-attempts-a-reset/
  25. Like
    enrique11 got a reaction from sproutseas in Ripple Lawsuit dismissed? Is this legit?   
    Here's a positive youtube video.  Again, I haven't looked at it.  I'm just posting the most recent videos:
    I want definitive, conclusive proof, so this legal bullsh*t can be done with once and for all.  
×
×
  • 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.