JoelQuinn reacted to KarmaCoverage in David Schwartz twitter comment clarification.
Think more in terms of Liquidity in a plumbing system. So some water/value goes in (on the outgoing exchange), the value moves through the system and some water/value flows out at a different location in the system, the in comming exchange of (RippleNet/IoV).
The water which flowed out, is not the same water that flowed in. The water inflow, just pushed some water out of the other side of the system.
The amount of water in the system (aka demand = supply) is not pertinent, it is the value/water flow rate through the system, that is the "liquidity".
Think of RippleNet and XRPLedger and the IoV as pumps in a plumbing system. The higher the volume of flow, which can be pumped through them... the higher the utility value of the pump/system.
Just like you pay more for a big pump, than you pay for a small pump.
JoelQuinn reacted to CountZerpula in SCB Thailand will announce their XRP system "Soon"
This is really what it all boils down to.
It's actually much bigger than SCB 'using XRP'.
As @Pablo stated:
" ... one has to conclude that the SCB rep could mean absolutely anything."
Hard to disagree with that, and it works both ways - it could mean nothing at all, it could be that they were in fact referring to a specific xRapid JPY/THB corridor, twice -- it could be that when they say "XRP system" that they are referring to xRapid for yet a third time - but none of it really matters right now. It will take however long it takes to roll out, and if one doesn't believe that and/or doesn't have the patience to see it through, that's another issue entirely. Tweeting 'wen XRP' at the Bank of International Settlements, and threatening a class-action suit against SCB isn't going to speed up XRP adoption.
IMO it's likely they were referring to another corridor, in addition to the established network that we already know about:
"Q: So, who on RippleNet is using this feature??
A: ... [SCB] are allowing customers to facilitate payments through Siam Commercial Bank into Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.
(For newer investors that may never have sorted through what Multi-Hop is, the above article is one of the best overviews I'd seen.)
JoelQuinn reacted to mars75 in The Issues in the International Payment Space
Although arguments can be made against the notion of future adoption of the XRPL by the financial system thru supporting the retention of the current international payment system or emphasizing the technological progress in the SWIFT payment network, they fail to address critical flaws in today’s system. Hackers, political pressure, regulators, and the shrinking correspondent banking system are all legitimate issues that are impacting banking operations.
Most international payments are facilitated through the SWIFT network today. SWIFT is a messaging network used to send and receive information on financial transactions between financial institutions. Currently, more than 11,000 financial institutions from around the world are linked to the SWIFT network for operations. Typically, the originating bank is required to have a working relationship with the destination bank in international wire transfers. If there is none, the originating bank can search the SWIFT network for a correspondent bank that has one with both banks.(2) Once found, the transaction is transferred through Nostro accounts held at the intermediary bank for a fee to the destination bank. Although SWIFT’s inception has proven to be beneficial in enabling international payments between banks globally, it’s reliance or the monopolistic position has become a double-edged sword.
Due to their international relationships, SWIFT was viewed as an apolitical organization that was independent of any country’s domestic foreign policy. Unfortunately, this has not been proven the case the past few years as political disputes now threaten to fragment the international payments space. Regardless of your political views towards Iran, the United States pressure on SWIFT to disconnect Iranian financial institutions from the network has been unprecedented. While the action undergone by SWIFT contradicts the European Union’s desires. Although the EU intends to maintain trade with Iranian institutions, SWIFT complied with the US requests.(3) With the consequence being that now the international payment network has become weaponized to exert political pressure onto countries or regions. This undermines the trust within the network as participants can ultimately be on the wrong side of political discourse. Along with Iranian FIs, there has been heavy speculation from US media sources and diplomats that Russian financial institutions might face similar sanctions to their Iranian counterparts in the future.(4) Further eroding any participant confidence in SWIFT remaining apolitical.
SWIFT’s inability to remain impartial to the network’s participants is already beginning to have repercussions. In Europe, there has been a political push back on the US influence over the payment network. Germany's foreign minister, Heiko Maas, has publicly stated that the EU should "strengthen European autonomy by creating payment channels that are independent of the United States — a European Monetary Fund and an independent SWIFT system".(5) Even more striking were Maas’ comments that the EU had already begun the process of developing an alternative payment system. Both Iran and Russia have also taken similar responses to the EU. Iran has begun implementing an alternative banking platform for banking transactions with foreign institutions.(6) Meanwhile, Russian financial institutions have prepared themselves to be disconnected from the SWIFT network at a moments notice and have begun to adopt another alternative payment system CIPS. CIPS or the Chinese Alternative Global Payments System is also an alternative payment platform provided by China. CIPS was intended to make transactions between China and Russia easier while enticing other countries to utilize the system.(7) Russia has also begun to develop its own payment system called the “System for Transfer of Financial Messages” (SPFS). Essentially, the global political environment has pushed regions or countries to develop or adopt alternative solutions to SWIFT. Creating an ever growing, fragmented international payment network that will require interoperability between systems.
SWIFT’s security has also been exploited these past several years, further testing the participant's trust of the network. Along with the frequency of these hacks occurring, the severity of them is increasing. Of the top five biggest SWIFT hacks by money lost, four of them have occurred within the past two years.(8) The sophistication of these attacks is becoming so advanced for SWIFT’s liking that they have begun to issue warnings and urge participants to increase their security measures.(9) In some attacks, hackers have been able to order payments to banks in other countries by copying preformatted payment requests into the SWIFT messaging software. Even further eroding trust in the network’s security, it was discovered that the NSA had breached SWIFT’s security and have developed tools for its operations. Thru leaked documents and files by a hacker group, the public was made aware of how the NSA had accessed the messaging system. Possibly setting in an uncomfortable feeling for financial institutions located in Eastern countries that the SWIFT network is a possible vector for attacks.
Structurally, the correspondent banking system has been on a gradual decline for several years while total volume and value of payments through SWIFT are increasing. The Financial Stability Board conducted a study in which the FSB found that from 2011 to the end of 2017, active correspondent relationships declined by 15.5 percent across all currencies.(1) While for 2017 alone, it declined by 4.1 percent. More recent studies have concluded that 2018 saw declines in active relationships and corridors of about 3.5% and 2% respectively.(11) With the global correspondent banking network now declining by about 20% and the number of active corridors having fallen by roughly 10% the past seven years. This decline in active correspondent relationships has also coincided with the increased concentration within the correspondent banking market. Remaining participants in the network have their market share increase as competing banks exit the system. Both these trends pose respective risks and issues to the banking system. An increase in the volume of payments with the decrease in the number of correspondent relationships is theorized to increase the length of the payment chains. Implying payments will need to be facilitated thru more intermediary parties to reach the same destination. Possibly adding more exchange or transaction fees along with increasing the settlement time. Meanwhile, a concentration in the correspondent banking market introduces an unwelcoming scenario. Theorized consequences include a decrease in the competition of services, leading to higher costs and more fragile networks. As the payment network relies on fewer participants to facilitate payments, the failure of a participant will have greater repercussions as they are more relied on.
Ultimately, the global political environment is causing a fragmentation of the global payment system while the financial system is gradually entering a delicate state. Both trends have already begun to force global and financial institutions to adapt and find alternative systems. Regardless of what SWIFT can develop to enhance it’s services to its participants, there will be issues the organization cannot resolve. Interoperability will more than likely be the key in enabling the future global payment space to withstand any geopolitical shocks, along with providing a crucial capability if the financial system is under strain due to the structure of the correspondent banking system. Placing Ripple’s xCurrent or ILP in an advantageous position.
JoelQuinn reacted to EcneitapLatnem in How many others Do not know anyone invested in crypto
Welp, there you have it folks, we are early AF!
JoelQuinn reacted to JannaOneTrick in [Ripple at an Event] May 2019
Smarter Faster Payments 2019
May 5 - 8, Orlando
Blockchain For Finance Conference
7 - 8 May, Singapore
13 - 15 May, New York
14 - 16 May, Toronto
International Conference on Fintech
22 - 23 May, Vienna
JoelQuinn reacted to JannaOneTrick in Ripple = Gold Affinity Sponsor from BAFT
Ripple is a Gold Affinity Sponsor for the event currently held by The Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT).
Gold Affinity Sponsor
Ripple will have a 50 minutes long conference on its own, by Cameron Goldberg, later today.
On the 1st of May, Ripple and Swift will both be participants (along with VISA and PNC) in a 1 hour long discussion about competition among cross-border payment networks.
Their twitter account (they post some updates from time to time):
JoelQuinn reacted to KarmaCoverage in What’s up w Ripple tweet just now about Facebook?
All the big tech companies have been chasing Payments for over a decade.
Looks to me like they all did a swing and a miss, while Ripple has stepped up to the plate and hit a grand slam.
Fbook will fall in line along with the banks. Not sure how this will change their business model? This all opens up many options, so many ways for the value to flow through their network.
JoelQuinn reacted to Kpuff in Ripple Welcomes Yoshitaka Kitao to Its Board of Directors
Breaking news!! Kitao has delayed joining Ripple it’s been postponed to January of 2020
JoelQuinn reacted to CountZerpula in September tests from R3 Corda, conducted by Accenture, mentioned by Christine Lagarde
Hey Kiwi ... there is a video interview with Jennifer Peve of DTCC, where she describes the testing in some detail:
For the testing, DTCC chose two private DLT platforms:
R3|Corda Enterprise - https://www.r3.com/corda-enterprise/
Digital Asset|DA Platform - https://www.digitalasset.com/products
Accenture managed the project and created two ring-fenced environments within DTCC's AWS Cloud environment.
JoelQuinn reacted to KarmaCoverage in Western Union (xRapid pilot) and Coins.ph (xRapid preferred) exchange is currently partner.
You make a good point about the unserved markets, and Ripple enabling WU to grow into these newly profitable markets.
The other thing about Ripple "not saving WU much" is that WU floats their own capital (sort of like American Express, but not visa/mc). WU & AMEX could reduce their float inventory, "saving" by using less money to fund the same amount of payment flows, but to do this the float would have to come from somewhere....? Exchange trading liquidity.
My guess is that when Exchange liquidity is deep enough, they and many others will test out the "savings" and grow a taste for it.
JoelQuinn reacted to hallwaymonitor in The Future of Payments Ft. Dan Schulman and Brad Garlinghouse
I think the best piece of information from the video was that Ripple signed 3 production contracts per week. Thus, the current signing rate would give us 156 (3*52) new production contracts during 2019 assuming that the signing rate won't change (it likely will) during the year.
Credits to Michael Nardolillo from Twitter.
JoelQuinn reacted to Simoun in SBI CEO Newest Statement: Tightening Cooperation With Ripple (XRP) To Spread MoneyTap To 200 Financial Institutions And Beyond
I don't think he can here the naysayers from all the explosions he's walking away from.
JoelQuinn reacted to lucky in Hi! I'm Bob
The problem with paying taxes on transactions of a high velocity (micro) payment system in which it becomes very easy to pay people for things that they are currently doing for free (such as you rewarding me for typing this text), is that the higher the velocity of payments, the faster the money will be completely eaten by taxes. For example, if the tax is only 1%, after transacting a single unit around 500 times (Bob paying Alice, Alice paying Charlie, Charly paying Bob etc), 99% of that unit has been eaten by taxes.
So that makes applying tax rates to highly efficient digital micropayment systems a problem even at very low rates. But only if the taxes are extracted OUT of the payment system, and into the mortar and brick payment system that operates at a millionth of the velocity.
However, there should not be a problem if the taxes are redistributed at the same velocity as they are charged. If you consider paying tax to the government as money that is evenly redistributed across all (services for) community members, you could build a system in which the tax on each transaction is immediately evenly redistributed to all community members (Alice, Bob and Charlie etc), as a form of basic income. The efficient payment system then also enables "the governement" to charge (micro) payments on the usage of all public services, including using a road, or even walking in a park... But taxes are also raised to pay for things you don't want to charge on a pay-per-use basis, such as art, law enforcement and police. For that you could create some mechanism that allows members to vote on what projects receive crowdfunding (a bigger slice of the tax pie than basic income).
One of the reason that I'm so bullish on digital assets is that it can enable a society in which taxes and voting on what to spend the taxes can be organised in a completely automated, transparent and fair way.
JoelQuinn reacted to JoelKatz in Hi! I'm Bob
No, nothing like that.
Community credit is about "money" arising from interactions between peers rather than between issuers and users.
For example, suppose you do something for me and I allow you to "owe me one". The idea is for this to act as a currency. Someone who wants something from me (and who I don't trust enough to let them owe me one) wants me to owe them one rather than owing you one. So if they do something for you, you could give them the "marker" you got when you did me a favor and now I owe them a favor. These "markers" can function as a currency.
It's kind of like a system where all that exists is balances between people. You may trust me enough to extend me credit. So when I want something from you, you may let me owe you $50 but no more. You now have a +$50 balance and I have a -$50 balance. Now if I want something else from you, I'm out of credit. So I need to find someone who either you owe money to or who will let you borrow from them and give them something for which they in return will restore my credit.
So, for example, say you have Alice, Bill, and Charlie. Alice is highly trusted because she has a valuable commercial network and both Bill and Charlie are willing to let Alice owe them money. Alice needs something from Charlie and in exchange Charlie lets Alice owe her $20.
So now, Charlie owes Alice $20. Alice can borrow from Bill or Charlie.
Now, say Bill wants something from Alice. Alice won't extend Bill any credit because she doesn't trust him. But Bill can give Charlie $20 and in exchange for the $20 Alice owes him and now Alice owes $20 to Bill. Bill can pay Alice $20 with her own IOU.
This is precisely how all assets other than XRP work in the XRP Ledger. They're always balances between accounts, either account can extend credit to the other, and balances can "ripple" through accounts.
By having XRP in the mix, credit can be settled and restored immediately. For example, Alice can place an offer to give out a $10 IOU for 32 XRP. Now if someone owes Alice $10, they can buy a $10 IOU from Alice and the two IOUs cancel out. This will restore their credit.
This is an implementation of Ryan Fugger's original vision of money arising out of community relationships and providing people a network of assets and credits they can contribute to and draw off of. Arthur's genius was to provide a system of gateways to allow the system to be easily connected to external financial systems to help avoid the problem of long paths or unidirectional flows.
JoelQuinn reacted to JoelKatz in Hi! I'm Bob
We certainly would never discourage anyone from using the XRPL's distributed exchange feature! I'm still a bit sad that our strategy lead us in a different direction and that we abandoned the nascent ecosystem we had been building. It was clear that the feature was way ahead of its time and there was no direct path to adoption then.
I talk to Ethan (head of Xpring and pretty much everything at Ripple other than cross-currency payments) frequently about whether there are good use cases for the ledger's decentralized exchange now and whether that's something we can use Xpring to help develop. I have a plan that moves us in that direction that I've been working on and shown to several people inside the company. The problem I keep coming back to is that there isn't quite a great use case that I can see how to move to a product just yet. But getting more minds thinking in that direction might yield results and time has brought the rest of the world in this direction.
The other thing that Arthur and I built into the ledger in the early days is community credit. That is, I think, even further ahead of its time and even harder to see a solid use case for in the near term. I sometimes feel like I work for Twitter in 2000 and I'm trying to explain to everyone that for us to really grow, people need better phones. Of course, there was no Twitter in 2000 -- it was too early. I'm trying to find ways to make it later as quickly as possible.
JoelQuinn reacted to BobWay in Hi! I'm Bob
I really have no idea. I was head down ignoring crypto at that moment. I don't think I knew it got to .80, I remember my wife telling me .60 at one point. I haven't done any trading since 2017 actually. Just hodling on!
Banks are very interesting. US banks are very competitive. Canadian banks seem more cooperative. All seem like pack animals to me. It's hard to get the pack moving, but once a few start it quickly turns into a stampede. It's important for me to analyze the news based on this competitive perspective.
JP Morgan (because you named them) isn't really competing with Ripple. They have had their own internal blockchain team for several years. It used to be run by Amber Baldet who I met with on several occasions while working at Ripple. She is an amazingly smart leader and was very gracious to me personally. She referring us up the chain to her bosses several times for very productive meetings.
On the other hand, if you look at RippleNet you'll see Bank of America Merrill Lynch on the steering committee. It's probably a pretty good presumption that JP Morgan and Bank of America are pretty competitive. I think of JP Morgan's latest news as more of a shot across the bow towards our other banks, rather than Ripple in particular. But I do think that it might cause all the RippleNet banks to pick up their pace a bit. Everyone in RippleNet wants to be seen as both a thought and execution leader. You can't be that if you're second.
JoelQuinn reacted to BobWay in Hi! I'm Bob
I really can't hint. I don't have any specific knowledge.
When I left Ripple I need to decompress and concentrate on other things for my own sanity. I haven't had much contact with the team nor have I been reading their press releases. I know the shape of the financial ecosystem as a whole. I know where Ripple had looked for inroads before. Some of those showed promise and other showed no promise. Mostly what I'm doing is taking my historical experience and knowledge and speculating at what I think are the most productive ways forward. Basically that was my job while I was at Ripple as well.
This is a fun question! Thanks.
How would you like to be a founding member of the sales team for one of the most famous "blockchain technology" companies in the world? But let's make it harder. Let's give you a product to sell that doesn't directly use your fancy blockchain or your famous cryptocurrency asset at all! Wouldn't that be fun?
The way I explained it is, "ILP uses the technologies of blockchain, without the chain of blocks."
Keep in mind "blockchain technology" is not Ripple jargon. Chris Larson started discussing "distributed ledgers" and all the things you could do with them that weren't cryptocurrency related. This argument got such a great response in business and the press that folks from the bitcoin/altcoin sphere coined the term "blockchain technology" in response to our discussion "distributed ledgers".
xCurrent, xVia, xRapid, and the XRP ledger all implement "synchronized" (atomic) payments with instant settlement. That is the key feature "rippling payments" are built on. XRP ledger and ILP are built upon similar primitives. Transaction hashes, digital signatures, cryptographic keys, ledger entries (accounts, journals). XRP is public and counterpartyless. ILP is private and follows existing accounting relationships.
The overall theme and goal of Ripple as a company is to glue all of these technologies together into a synchronized payment network with instant settlement. Those two topics probably need their own thread. XRP represents the core of that network.
XRP distribution probably needs its own thread as well.
It turns out the reason Ripple the company still has so much XRP is a happy accident. It wasn't the original goal. It just turns out that distributing it was much more complicated than anyone expected. How hard could giving away free money be? At least that is what most of us thought at the beginning...
The happy part of the accident is that (in my personal analysis) without that reserve of XRP to draw on, it would be impossible to force XRP into the position of global bridge currency asset. So, curiously, I think Ripple holding that much XRP is critical to XRPs success. It also means that other cryptocurrency system that attempt to become a global bridge currency will fail for lack of the leverage necessary to displace existing bridge currencies.
Very long ago there was an offer to buy Ripple out. Most considered it undervalued and preferred to remain independent. That was a good call in retrospect.
I don't know If there have been other more recent offers. Above my pay grade as they say.
The biggest concern is ALWAYS that our potential partners and customers don't move fast enough. I don't see any directly nefarious enemies. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is the thing the company fights the hardest. One of the key tools in that fight is to leverage the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO).
JoelQuinn reacted to BobWay in Hi! I'm Bob
Sorry to answer out of order, but I think this is closely related to what I just got done writing about.
I addressed this in my previous post. I would absolutely expect that to happen.
Ripple has a team called "Product" and a separate team called "Development".
The Ripple development team has created a set of core technologies. Rippled, RippleConnect, the Interledger Protocol, the ILP components (ledger, connector, notary).
The Ripple product team has take these technologies and "productized" them for certain markets. (xCurrent, xVia, xRapid) The Ripple marketing and communication team and sales team then promotes these products. Marcom through the Ripple website, press and conferences. The sales team through direct meetings with banks and payment service providers.
The marcom efforts are what tend to leak across to this site. What you don't really hear about are the core technology developments and how they underly current products. Once you understand that it becomes easier to guess about future products.So specifically, you hear xRapid is meant for non-banking financial institutions. That is absolutely true at the moment. What I hear is much different.
We've put together glossy fliers to explain some core Ripple technology to payment services providers in these countries who serve these types of customers We're setting up press interviews to get word of this particular growth tactic into our targeted market We've also put together a sales team to approach payment service providers in those countries We've also put together operations and support teams to make sure anything they've deployed doesn't fall over We've also setup a markets team to monitory the prices and trading volume to make sure XRP is cheaper than alternative paths We've also has the markets team analyze alternative rebalancing paths than can compensate for one-way-flow price imbalances Note that all of the things I've bulleted build operation excellence. They don't actually constrain XRPs use to that particular market in perpetuity. At any given moment, the product and marketing teams might decide to take the exact same underlying core technologies and "re-productize" them towards a new set of potential customers. When this happens, all the operational excellence will transfer and the new teams will have a running start as they grow RippleNet.
I think the "write a book" side is winning at the moment!
What I'm trying to clarify is that banks as gateways is exactly what Ripple is trying to achieve! It just seems like Ripple is taking a rather convoluted path to get there. There are several reasons for that. Early on we tried to sell Banks on the idea of being directly on the RCL (Ripple ledger) and allowing their customers to open accounts (trust lines) with them directly on ledger. The banks pushed back on this pretty hard. It is pretty easy to see why. The Ripple client was a bit hard to use and understand for someone who wasn't a crypto geek. The already had their own "web banking" clients and preferred to keep their customers in their own walled garden.
Secondly, the banks really didn't like the concept of a "public" ledger. Banks are used to keeping all their relationships and transactions private.
And third, all high volume financial institutions kept asking, "Will it scale?" Questions like, "Can you support every credit card transaction during the Christmas season?" There is no getting around the fact that consensus based systems have limits. If everyone world wide needed to reach agreement that every Chinese lunch CNY payment happened and serialize them into a single globally agreed upon sequence that seems a bit silly if you are a European bank specialized in local EUR payments. Beyond transactional scalability, you need to think about user account scalability. If you want to put 8 billion people on ledger and each of them is going to have a couple of trust lines and maybe market orders then you are looking towards 100 billion ledger entries. That means server get larger and operational costs do as well.
User scalability led us toward a "hosted wallet" model.
Most customer fiat accounts are kept off RCL at the banks that currently hold them. Only a single RCL account root is needed for the bank. Individual customers. All transaction are processed via RCL using source/destination tags so the institutions can figure out which customers were involved. RippleConnect was designed to protect the customer's privacy even though the ledger transactions among banks were still public.
It did away with the need for publicly visible source/destination tags. It implemented the concept of "pre-transaction negotiation" between financial institutions. Institutions communicate off ledger to: Determine who Alice and Bob are Exchange KYC/AML information Decide if all parties are willing to participate in a transaction PRIOR TO moving any money on the RCL This ability to reject a transaction before it happens completely avoids the lossy reversal problem inherent with market based payments. ILP was Ripple's attempt to address the other banks concerns of privacy and scalability
ILP based networks use bi-lateral communication between account co-parties. No one else sees those messages. ILP based networks are highly scalable because your server doesn't receive messages for transactions you don't participate in. Every Ripple product you read about is built out of a handful of core technologies.
The Ripple consensus ledger (XRPL now). This is useful when you need synchronized transactions and no counter party risk. ILP based components (xCurrent, xVia). These are useful when you need synchronized transactions as well and privacy and scalability. RippleConnect's pre-transaction messaging and payment object. This allows institutions to agree on what they are doing and the costs, prior to moving money. xCurrent, xVia, xRapid all use the payment object and pre-transaction messaging concepts. RippleConnect 1.0-2.0 implemented hosted wallets for RCL RippleConnect 3.0 implemented hosted wallets for ILP
If you separate the core technologies from the product/marketing discussion it becomes much easer to see a roadmap that takes us all the way to the end.
JoelQuinn reacted to BobWay in Hi! I'm Bob
This is a great couple of questions. I feel handicapped by not having a whiteboard to draw on in answering. Excuse my ASCII art...
The best way to think of XRP usage is in the context of Alice and Bob. But in the current world where neither Alice nor Bob know anything about XRP.
Alice is part of an ecosystem of payment senders. The Alice's of the world work their day jobs and receive and hold their money in the local fiat currency. (Alice) ----@ (Bank A) So in Ascii art, "Alice hold her money in an account at Bank A" Bob is part of an ecosystem of payment receivers. The Bob's of the world also hold their money in their local fiat currency. (Bank A) @----- (Bob). "Bob holds his money in an account at Bank B" In drawing it out, you ALWAYS end up with a graph. That graph tells you if and how money can flow and how much it will cost along each path option.
(Alice) ----@ (Bank A) @---- (Mark) ----@ (Bank B) @---- (Bob). "Mark holds accounts at both Bank A and Bank B" He allows money to flow through his accounts. Note: These are the types of diagrams the Ripple graph was intended to explore.
So notice that I didn't list XRP anywhere in the above diagram. That seems like it sucks at first. But it is worth realizing that what I've done goes beyond Alice and Bob as individuals. What I've done is connect EVERY customer of Bank A with EVERY customer at Bank B. Meaning I've connected two whole ecosystems.
If I replace the banks with something larger, then the payment potential gets larger.
(Alice) ----@ (SPEI) @---- (Mark) ----@ (IMPS) @---- (Bob). "Now anyone with a bank account in Mexico can send synchronized payments to anyone in India"
But what about XRP? Isn't Mark just going to get rich here trading fiat?
Yes, but the first step is to get money moving through OUR system (RippleNet). The least scary way (for banks) to do that is via fiat like they are used to.
XRP comes in as an alternate lower cost path.
(Alice) ----@ (SPEI) @----------------------- (Mark) ----------------------@ (IMPS) @---- (Bob) We want this path to cost more (SPEI) @---- (Mark) ----@ (XRP) @---- (Mak) ----@ (IMPS) We want this path to cost less You can add that path without upsetting the original topology. If a bank is scared of crypto they can pay more. if they want to pay less, they can route through crypto. I'll leave it to you to decide how long you think banks will want to pay more for transactions.
So a good way to think about Ripple's strategy is as multiple teams building out operational volume in different sections of the graph.
The xCurrent part of RippleNet is building out operation value on the top line. This includes growing the total pool of "Alices and Bobs". The xRapid part of RippleNet is building out the operation that will assure that the XRP path always costs less. Initially this looks like two disconnected ecosystems, Banks vs Payment Services. But I think it is more insightful to think about it as building operational mastery in different conceptual areas. The payment services xRapid is targeting already use the top line banking ecosystem. They are not closing their bank accounts. They are just augmenting them with additional lower cost paths. One you realize that, it become easer to see how banks can adopt these same lower cost paths with few additional operation changes.
With that as background, keep an eye on Japan, India, Mexico, and Canada. Then I'd start looking for large markets in South America and East Asia. As I mentioned in a previous post, any countries that are current clearing payments through US banks, but are at risk of "de-risking" account closure are very good candidates to use XRP. This allows them to dis-intermediate the correspondents looking to de-risk them.
Again, I don't have first hand knowledge of which partnerships are farthest along. But that is the way I analyze the larger financial ecosystem as a whole.