Jump to content

onetruexrp

Member
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    onetruexrp reacted to slinuxuzer in Swift & Ripple New Angle   
    I’ve been following the “Swipple” discussions and waiting for someone to articulate this theory and haven’t seen it yet, so I’m going to attempt to explain why I believe Swift and Ripple won’t need to form a partnership in order for Swift Payments to be settled over RippleNET/xRapid.
    First to understand the theory it is important to explain the difference between a payment and a settlement, which seems to be widely misunderstood in this space.
    Imagine you are playing black jack at a casino and the waitress comes by and you buy a pack of cigarettes, if you pay with your credit card you’ve made a payment, but not a settlement, there is a transference of obligations, but two settlements are left to be made, one from the credit card company to the casino and one from you to the credit card company. However, if you gave the same waitress casino chips you have settled this all the way through.
    So let me make the point, Swift is not and does not want to be in the business of settlement. One good reason for this is that would be in direct competition with most of their 11,000 customers, who do provide settlement services, and Swift has publicly stated they don’t want to do that. Each Swift Message includes instructions for how to settle a payment, with details such as which bank and account (Nostro/Vostro).
    This begs the question of, why would Ripple even want to partner with Swift? And if they did why would it do anything to drive up XRP price, since XRP is for settlement and Swift clearly is not in the settlement business? Good questions. The answer of course is there is no “partnership”, at least not in the way most people are envisioning, the common fantasy seems to be Swift unilaterally pushing 5 trillion a day in settlements across RippleNET and XRP, but of course Swift doesn’t manage these settlements, see the issue yet?
    Now on to my theory, in the past few months we’ve seen a few diagrams sourced directly from Ripple Partner websites that show payment flows that include both Swift and Ripple in the same flow. This has always had my curiosity up, because I don’t think someone drew these up for fun and posted them on partner websites, if they had come from Twitter or other dubious sources I could write them off as a hoax.
    Swift releases code updates yearly and has gradually been phasing in more support for ISO20022, (Swift being the primary contributor to the standards creation, some 75%) and after reviewing their release notes and other roadmap information it is clear that they have set a date in November where all nodes on the network are required to update their software to come into compliance with 2018’s update.
    This year's update is mainly about adding end-to-end tracking with a UETR tracking field in every transaction that will be mandatory for each hop/processor on the network to maintain as each message flows through said hops in the Swift network, hence the term end-to-end. Once the deadline crosses then payments using the Swift Application Programming Interface (API) will be able to read/use the UETR field. An API is used for program-to-program communication, essentially when disparate programs need to communicate with each other.
    So after the deadline has been crossed and all nodes on the network and the messages that they initiate or route have the UETR field in them end-to-end AND this information can be accessed by programs using the API (Ripple In this case), then that said program can determine the status of a payment, and if the payment has reached its final destination and been confirmed.
    Why is this important? Its important because if you want a third-party program to provide settlement services for your payments, then you must provide a way for that program to determine when it is appropriate to initiate a settlement - meaning you don't settle until after you have paid, for good reason (the API and UETR tracking allow a program to query payment status).
    Payments fail for various reasons, and we can’t be in the business of settling a payment before it is confirmed to be valid and final. Can you imagine the heart ache with trying to roll back a “Settlement” it’s the equivalent of “Hey I put money in your wallet on accident, please send it back”.
    So to summarize, I believe that after the November Swift Update, the front end processors such as Temenous, ACI, SAP Etc that leverage the Swift network, will now be able to leverage the Swift API to provide “settlement” services possibly with a settlement solution like xRapid. I don’t believe there is any partnership required for this to happen, simply Swift must / is in the process of providing the needed “Third-party extensions” to allow this to happen. Thereby bringing more value overall to using the Swift solution without the need for Swift themselves to provide an actual settlement service.
    I will take a moment to address another question that was raised continuously in the previous thread. Yes it is true that Swift customers can perform the code upgrade now, ahead of the deadline, and surely many have already done so. When you roll out an IT project it is rarely a good idea to cut everything over at once and at the last moment. You want early adopters and to phase things in ahead of time, that gives the project time to react if there are unexpected issues of any type. So the question then becomes, why wouldn't a settlement service be launched already? Why is the Novemeber deadline important and potentially a catalyst for price movement? It is important to understand one thing about the "deadline" it is in fact a "deadline" where after this set date and time, only then can you assume that 100% of the nodes on the network are either in compliance with the new standard OR have been dropped from the network.
    IMO, you wouldn't want to launch a new settlement service that relied on the November update until after the deadline, otherwise you'll see many failures in settlements or you'll see many payments you can't provide the new service for, because XYZ bank on the Swift network hasn't yet updated. You as the project team would likely end up in troubleshooting hell chasing down tons of issues only to find out in most cases "Oh this is one more issue we wouldn't even be talking about if we had waited to launch until after the deadline".
    P.s. There is another  Commentator that has been raising this theory, but the thread is full of arguing and people not understanding his theory, I give this guy partial credit for raising the theory, I wrote this mainly to try and help him clarify his points. Keep in mind we are all on the same team and I assume we all want XRP to appreciate.
  2. Like
    onetruexrp got a reaction from viking3 in Rippled - Bearableguy123   
    I can tell you for sure he was definitely hinting about apple the company, i have spent hours going through his history. There was one thread where he linked 3 youtube videos that associate Apple/Apple pay with ripple. Further he's made 2 posts about apples in the Rippled subreddit, one being the 'low hanging fruit' and the other being just a whole green apple, with a winking face. 
  3. Confused
    onetruexrp got a reaction from CryptoOwl in Zerpening Part 2: The Sequel   
    Everyone should look into ICX, highly promising project. 
  4. Like
    onetruexrp got a reaction from JordanC in Rippled - Bearableguy123   
    So it seems the "Rippled" subreddit has been privated/no longer accessible to general public. I have been following his posts, and he has made a lot of interesting claims about XRP that seem like it is sourced from the inside. The "jester" disappears shortly after making a prediction of $589+ for 1 XRP and alluding to Malta. 
×
×
  • Create New...