Odiseo

I personally wouldn’t add more tasks to the XRPL consensus process, it’s probably the more importan process inside XRPL, I would keep it as simple as possible unless really necessary. I would move it to an external consensus in Codius or other smart contract platform, where you can design it as decentralized a you want.

The problem is that, those publisher accounts should retain the power to control de price feed if we want to remove the risk from a non fully trusted administrator. So if we move the publisher accounts keys to a Codius contract we could automate and decentralized the pricing process, the trade off is that we move the risk to the Codius contract, which could be hacked and a 3rd party take control of the price feed.

I think I‘ve contradicted myself on the last post, if the main account keeps the power to reset the price feed key, then what is the purpose of the Codius contract? It needs more thought

I agree that the risk of storing the private keys of the account managing the StableCoin in a Codius contract would be too high. I’m not in favor of using XRPL for consensus on price, I would try to keep XRPL as simple as possible. My proposal would be that the StableCoin creation logic in XRPL should include parameters to facilitate the Codius price feed case. Something like allowing the option of signing price transactions with a special key, different to the account key,, and that the main account key still keeps the power to reset that second key if compromised, that way the Codius contract would only risk the price feed control temporarily if compromised.

As the price would be updated with timely XRPL transactions, it seems to me that this process could be decentralised on a Codius contract, based on a consensus agreement between few parties, or even getting the data automatically from some oracle and triggering the correspondent XRPL transacción. If that is possible the only risk left is the collateral level, which I think the proposed implementation takes care of very well

I think I’ve answered one of my concerns reading with more attention Joel’s post. The risk of “running on the bank” would be diminished by giving privilege to the last collateralised positions, if I understand it correctly that would be the oposite to a pyramid scheme, as the first ones would feel more the pressure to keep enough reserves or will suffer the greatest losses.

I like this idea, but I would like to understand the level of trust and risks the users of the Stablecoin will have to bear. In the current IOUs model, the users trust that the issuer holds, off ledger, the correspondent USD, EUR, gold ..... to back up the IOU. In this new proposal, what will happen is the value of XRP drops and the issuer is not able or willing to increase the reserve to fully back up their Stablecoin? If the users panic, would it be like a run on a bank? The first ones will claim their XRP until the reserves are depleted and the last users will finish with a Stable coin with no back up and no value?

No, once a account is deleted it will only stay in the history, which as we know is not necessary in XRPL, it will disappear from the current of future ledgers. Both, creating and deleting accounts, have a cost, so this new feature should not encourage bloating. I think even though it could make feasible new use cases that would temporally will create more accounts knowing that they will be able to delete them afterwards, in the long run a tendency to low cost should promote the use of the least accounts possible.

You took it too literally, you are using definitions of a fully developed ecosystem “the transport industry “. Put it in the same context, at the beginning of the development, If you are de inventor of the first car, and there are no roads for those cars to be used, and nobody knows what those cars can do to improve society, investing in the roads, which are needed for the car to be even used, would be the same as investing in the car industry. IOV is at that stage, XRP goes nowhere without an IPL network like Ripplenet and what others are building, for me those investments are investments in XRPL, even if they don’t touch XRP initially. We may go around about definitions, but we could agree that those investments, if proved useful in the future, are good. So let’s give to the Xpring’s team some support, instead of criticizing them mainly due to frustrations with price

The arguments I read in this thread that Ripple invests on business that only use xrp for financing is nonsense, even if they do use it for financing, it’s to finance development necessary to achieve the IOV vision, a vision that has XRP as an important component, but it’s not the only piece. Stop looking too close up and see the big picture

Dharma seems to work mainly on interfaces for DeFi products, others are working with ILP developing interoperability, not touching directly xrp, but those products are necessary to expand the use cases of XRP

If Xpring says “we are going to invest only on companies that develops on the car industry”, and they invest on companies that creates roads or traffic management, which don’t touch cars directly, will they be misleading? I don’t think so. Dharma and others creates products that can be used with XRP, so indirectly they do are working developing xrpl.

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.

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.

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.