Lamberth

It is almost physically painful to see all “XRPTHESTANDARD” comments on Twitter lately. I mean, why do people need to put those comments under every post they read? “BRADFORPRESIDENT” sounds much more fun and achieves the same goal.

I know a couple of people who invested small amounts during the 2017 bull run (major crypto only). They all think it is a scam by now.

Somebody should tell those guys in Ubin/Jasper about the latest development of ILP (they are quoting the original ILP whitepaper based on Buterin’s paper from 2016 and clearly are not aware of the latest changes), it would have saved them a few years of research and development. They have just re-invented the Escrow Agent almost 2 years after the idea was dropped by ILP: https://medium.com/interledger-blog/simplifying-interledger-the-graveyard-of-possible-protocol-features-b35bf67439be Having that said, it is great to see this kind of paper coming from Central banks.

There is a rise, 0.11%

David Schwartz: “xCurrent, blockchain technology that provides cryptographically secure transactions across a dispersed network of ledgers”. https://ripple.com/insights/why-open-protocols-are-the-first-step-in-the-distributed-ledger-movement/

Which is great but has nothing to do with their own blockchain yet. Same as BNB. I am not saying those projects or their strategies are bad (on the contrary, I like both very much). I am only saying that tokens in these cases were used for capital raise (ICO) and are worthless until the teams have their own networks (or we have an ICO regulation). DLT is not a simple technology, doing it “right” and having it truly decentralized is a very complex problem (both from technical and governance standpoints).

Because it is based on Ethereum. Maybe it’s just me but I still don’t get Ethereum-based tokens. I mean, yes, it is good for ICO but why on Earth do you need to pretend it is worth something on its own?

You never know what could potentially start the thinking process. It is always thought provoking to read posts from smart people who have reasonable doubts (or hidden agenda). Kind of miss @MaxEntropy lately. It is as if Ripple’s marketing team is led by a technical guy who thinks that you can win masses over by stating facts while many recent examples in politics teach us otherwise. Either that or Ripple is not interested in masses. Which is why it was very strange to see statements from @BobWay that he was impressed by marketing results.

I am still hoping to learn something new from this conversation. I would love to see opinions why Ripple is not using its Marketing team to directly promote XRP among retail investors. Do get that retail market is a drop in the ocean but liquidity is liquidity, right?

Which leads to my 2nd question. Not all of the above are permissionless though. Just to be fair, permissioned ledgers are far from being super-successful on a scale too.

I’d say 1 - 1.5 years after the Production release is very fast for banks. I am not holding my breath. I suspect the next bull run will have nothing to do with xRapid or its usage. Sorry, I can’t agree. Pilots are just that, pilots. Nobody really invests at that stage. Everything starts when you passed a Pilot stage and is in Production.

This is a disadvantage of a pioneer. You waste a lot of time paving a road. Forget those 4 years, everything starts with a Production release.

Which is my 3rd question exactly. If Ripple decided that the answer is “yes”, they could have decided to focus on something else (xCurrent?) first.

Another perspective. Maybe it is not XRP that is failing but BAT which is over-hyped? This whole situation reminds me of non-SQL databases. MongoDB over-hyped their product ~5 years ago, got a huge market share and only then really focused on the product (instead of investing in tech first as many competitors did). Is this a winning strategy these days?