Jump to content

Odiseo

Member
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Odiseo

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree, for me it was only an exercise, I don’t do and I don’t like price predictions. About Bitcoin vs XRP, I think they could coexist, but I do think they overlap and compete in some usecases. I support XRP for different reasons, but I recognize that Bitcoin has currently more dominance, outside the crypto world most have heard of Bitcoin, very few of XRP. My view is that if XRP manages to develop the use cases currently in development by Ripple and other companies, even without taking into account future use cases, it has the potencial of surpassing Bitcoin.
  2. your calculations seems to be a little bias towards XRP , if you want to do this kind of comparisons you could do it fairer XRP circulating supply is actually close to 2000X, that would make your actual expectation based on current supply more like XRP at 2.1$, not 5$, when Bitcoin is at 5k$ Also if you think Bitcoin and XRP should have similar value currently, I think you could also look at total supply, 21 million vs 100 Billion, in that case Bitcoin at 5k$ would be equivalent to XRP at 1$. That would probably be a more fair comparison.
  3. My guess would be that Bittrex would have a process to exclude customers from NY to do USD pair transactions, so Xrapid transactions should not involve USD orders which are not compliant.
  4. I see 2 main issues with projects aiming at creating the killer wallet directly in XRPL 1- the need to ask the users to use their secret key puts a lot of pressure on security 2- to actually be really successful , that would bring many users to create an XRP address in XRPL, at this moment it will show one of the weakness of the XRPL, the lack of scalability on the number of XRP addresses manageable by the network. If a consumer product brings a few million people on the network, wouldn't that potentially kill it?
  5. Thank you Bob for all the details you've been sharing, if Ripple decided to implement this kind of algorithm, would they do it inside crypto exchanges?, would it need a partnership with them to implement it? or could it be done as an external product, which Ripple could control, or even speculating further, could it be a decentralised product, let's call it XPool as an example, designed in Codius, where anybody could participate, exchanges, market makers... Thank you,
  6. This just blows my mind. Of course we don't know if they will implement something like this, but the fact that they have thought about it and studied methods to accomplish it, is already very significant. I had in mind that Ripple shareholders may be pushing to hold as much XRP as possible, expecting that the ecosystem would still evolve with their current strategy, selling slowly to new partnerships, giving some away, investing some in new iniciatives ....., that would leave them with a bigger stake in the end. I thought that wasn't a good strategy, due to the importance of time in the adoption of new technology, that method would be too slow if at all possible, and also the market perception of having a player with so high % on a world wide medium of exchange would be against it. As you mention I think that sacrificing a big part of their stake would bring them liquid value, I just didn't know how they could do it. Thank you Bob,
  7. Thank you Bob for all this information. I still haven’t clear what could be the role of Ripple, if they decide to implement your papent or something similar, would they use part of their XRP to incentivize the MMs, would they sell XRP below the spot price? so the market makers could buy cheaper and make more profitable the XRP case vs Fiat-fiat?, would that mean that they would be redistributing their XRP through market makers? Do you think Ripple plans to distribute most of their XRP holdings with the aim of setting XRP as the default asset for cross borders? or they will try to keep hold of much as possible to return value to their shareholders?
  8. Marjan Delatinne, "The question is democratising more the liquidity management" around 10 minute mark, @BobWay, could that statement have some relation to your discussions on the method patented by you and Ripple?, would it be fair to say that that methodology would have a democratisation effect? allowing more participants on the creation of liquidity?
  9. To clarify, I’m all in favor of open tech, open source ..... But about strategic business inside info, I prefer the team who work harder an takes the right decisions for their customers to win, I don’t like oportunistic copycats.
  10. If Jed and the Stellar team find out about this mecanism, would they be able to use it? They also own a big % of their asset, and with IBM are pursuing the same usecase. Wouldn’t that cut Ripple’s advantage?, they may be listening
  11. I do agree with both of you, @XRP-JAG and @enrique11 , that competition is good for the ecosystem and good to drive innovation, my point is related to what approach is the best one for the cross border use case, I know XRP is more than that, but I'm only focusing on that use case, and to be fair we can agree that a success on cross border would have a big impact on the success of XRP as a whole. The cake may be big, but is not going to be divided in equal parts, that's is usually how business works, by intuition I would say that probably 80% one payer and the rest will fight for 20%. We can see now that both Ripple and IBM pursue the same use case and same customers (mainly banks), IBM is going for the approach that Ripple had tried in 2015-16, which I think is a more efficient and straightforward solution, Ripple is focused on the XRapid-Exchanges strategy for different historical reasons. I would like to see a logical analysis on why we think one approach is better than the other today, but we need to assume that regulation will be clarified soon (needed in both cases), and Banks will be more confident on dealing directly with crypto assets. My first thoughts is that if regulation is positive, the approach Ripple tried 4 years ago and IBM is pushing now, is more efficient, if that is the case, and IBM has also the advantage of having account managers dealing already with 100's of banks, what is the Ripple's edge?, Ripple has 300 employees, IBM has probably 100's of account managers which could be quickly trained to start selling to their already customers a new product. I think it's a fair question, no FUD intended.
  12. We are all XRP supporters on this thread, and I feel that we are a little bias when looking at these news. I would like to see a more in depth analysis, because I think it could have an impact on Ripple's strategy. @BobWay, please maybe you could give your insight. We know that Ripple had pivoted from using gateways in XRPL to provide fiat liquidity (call it IOUs or Stable coins). They have said a few times that they did it because the time was not right, we are talking about 2015, and FIs didn't want to touch crypto assets. We are in 2019, and we expect a more clear regulation, and more acceptance by FIs, even banks, to touch crypto assets, even Brad has mentioned it. If that is the case, could it be that Ripple had bad timing in 2015, and they may also have bad timing in 2019? IBM may be aware of what is coming, and that the timing is right to use the actual ledger, with stable coins, stable coins on the Stellar or XRP Ledgers are just IOUs, which can use the DEX built in, and avoid the need to use external exchanges, also they can use the native asset to settle, or any other asset if accepted as an IOU. Is IBM the ones with the correct timing in 2019 ? and Ripple too busy with their Xrapid-exchanges strategy, that they could be caught again with wrong timing? If FIs get more confident using directly crypto, why would the fo for a proposal where they have to use at least 2 third party exchanges to do a transaction, when they can do it using fiat tokenised by parties they trust and a digital asset for the cross border part?
  13. Thats true, we don’t have all the details on how IBM proposal works, but by the video, they seem to have split the messaging from the settlement, as Ripple has done, that was for me one of the big advantages od Ripples proposal to create a network. I think IBM could have a good selling point to banks and push later the use of a digital asset, the one they would benefit from more. I hope I’m wrong
  14. I personally think that we may be underestimating these news. I don't want to sound very pessimistic, as I'm long on XRP, but IBM is copying totally the vision of Ripple, including the use of a digital asset, That vision has been focused by Ripple on gaining relationships with banks, with relatively good success for a start up. But lets be realistic, IBM has already relationships with 99% of the mayor banks, that will give them a big advantage.
  15. But if you look at that paper, it describes only the current system, not Cobalt, even though it mentions Cobalt as a preferred algorithm to create more flexibility, maybe in the future. But Cobalt is really described in another paper by Ethan. The original white paper, I think from 2012, had some inaccuracies, mainly with the % overlap needed on the UNLs, it was too optimistic, the new updated white paper by Ethan is more accurate describing the current consensus algorithm. The proposed Cobalt would mean a come back to more flexibility on the overlap % of the UNLs to secure the network.
×
×
  • Create New...