Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Odiseo

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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 Codi
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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,
  18. 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 tim
  19. 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 ke
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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%.
  24. 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,
  25. 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
  • 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.