tar

I usually go on a decent rampage, bring them to the ground with a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick, count them off and then run around the house wildly shaking my arms above my head and scream: "DIS IEKS ARWW PIII VERI GUT! VEEEERRRRIIIIIII GUUUUUAAAADDD!" They are cheering on me afterwards.

If no one would use it to buy something, means no one is willing to sell it, its price is just too low On the contrary, if one assets value is expected to rise constantly this leads to a deflationary effect in which this type of asset will not (anymore) be used for payments overall (see Gresham's law).

I don't even know what to say to this. Are you serious? At least, you can swim in it.

@Valhalla_Guy Regarding dollar/euro/yuan/yen-bound tokens: Since these are tied, their price cannot go beyond the currency anchor - and also not below it - or only extremely marginally (even with scandal rumors, see e.g. USDT). So why invest in them? Furthermore, the problem remains of having to exchange these tokens with cross-border payments. This means that if bank A (country A) wants to make a transfer to bank B (country B), it must hold B tokens. This is tied up capital with foreign currency risk, similar to nostro accounts, which becomes superfluous with xRapid. The advantages of bound tokens are limited to domestic payments.

The foundations of innovation and economic growth do not lie in technology -> technology is the result of that innovation. Therefore Diamond and JC Collins (the author of the article) are missing the main factors of which enonomic expansion comes from and mainly concentrate on the after effects. Unfortunately, by that one can not understand why banks are unable to distribute money to a wider extend and why there is an inherent wealth accumulation process within capitalistic/debitistic societies. I recommend reading Heinsohn/Steiger: "Money, Productivity and Uncertainty in Capitalism and Socialism" (1981) (see here for German version) in order to understand the reason why the economic expansion derived out of Europe, England, from 1381 onwards and why debitors and creditors need unmortgaged property (wealth) for debt expansion.

I wonder whether Bitcoin Cash (or one of those cryptos with such enthusiastic anarchistic approach) will be able to establish itself as an everyday means of payment. However, I lack the belief, as - and this is essential - the normal citizen for paying in the everyday life won't do any apparently (or also actually) cumbersome exchange procedures for it as far as no clear advantages opposite fiat are offered to it. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle (besides the constant question of taxation with regard to cryptos) here is that not only the companies, but above all the ordinary citizen himself must become active. He has to get cryptos himself (ask around your neighborhood how many know about it), deal with their security (do they know what public and private keys are?) and then still know the associated software (how many skilled workers use simple payment apps?) or trust it (there is no institution that is liable for losses according to § 675u BGB (German Civil Code) (phishing, pharming), security holes on smartphones, etc.). This is different with XRP: here only the companies have to deal with it, while the ordinary citizens don't have to do anything at all. Moreover, BCH (and those other cryptos) is not a direct competitor to XRP. On the contrary: Ripple even supports the widespread use of BCH (and others), since you can communicate with all different networks via their protocol (interledger) and thus also transfer all other values. As companies and applications strengthen their competitive position if they use XRP in the background and thereby accelerate (their) payment transactions, reduce costs and make them more secure, XRP will also establish itself in the long term. Even if the SEC would be so stupid and define it as security. Even if one tries to ban it. Even if you tax it (to a particular extend). Even if some big names try to ignore and elude it. They all would set theirselfes in a worse market position and this simple economic effect beats back sooner or later.

Ford Model-T was "new technology"?

Closing nostro accounts also has an impact to the available deposits a bank has. Therefore, the overall effect of savings is not as huge as assumed. Furthermore, cost savings result in a revenue decrease on the other side.

Indeed @OzAlphaWolf. Everything she assumes for her calculations is far from reality. There is no cash flow of 24 trillion $. Actually (in 2015) there are 27 trillion $ which are outstanding balances on transactional accounts (see here). I am not even sure if that is the sum of all nostro account balances and even if so: then only a part of that is actually used regarding cross-border payments. Banks do not save 30 to 60 % of 27 trillion $. In fact, they can use the amounts of their nostro accounts for other purposes if they would adopt xRapid. Ripple does not get a 10 % fee out of those 27 trillion $. If banks adopt xRapid they have to pay a (monthly?) software licence and some maintenance costs to Ripple. For every xRapid transaction there is an XRP fee (a very small portion of XRP got destroyed) and a fee of the intermediaries (market makers that buy and sell XRP), as far as I know. But Ripple itself is not involved. XRP utility calculations have to consider demand & supply within the settlement time. One has to consider that only a maximum part of the actual cross-border payment flows are affecting XRP as they are instantly sold again within the settlement process. Therefore maximum demand amount within the settlement time and the actual offered XRP supply have to be considered when it comes to utility calculations for XRP. Please correct me, if I am wrong - but so far, most assumptions regarding nostro replacements by XRP are just false. Nevertheless, XRP will not only be used for the nostro replacements but also for many other cross-border payments where any type of value needs to be transfered (see Internet of Value). Within that lies the high utility pricing potential.

Power theory of value Power, the State and the Institution of Property So, to summarize: If the state would tax in particular cryptocoins instead of fiat or cash those cryptocoins would immediately become money and as those coins have a limited supply this change would have a deep negative impact as it limits the potential of indebtedness and therefore economic growth.

Assets are also not money per se although money is an asset. My second point was about fixed prices as there cannot be made any valuation by using so-called "debt free money" because there is no redemption date you could rely the valuation on. Again: labor has nothing to do with valuation and wealth.

Misunderstanding (digital) goods as medium of exchange and therefore as money leads to a misunderstanding of economic processes of which foundations lie deeply within the law. 1) Wealth and valuation does have no direct connection to the labor put into it. This is old Marxist theory which is just wrong. Valuations result from expectations from imposed (command: tax, tribute) and voluntary (contracts) obligations that must be fulfilled by the deadline. Accordingly, the actual anchor of valuation and economic impetus is the threat of sanctions for non-performance, i.e. sheer (threat of) violence. 2) There is no "debt free" genuine money. This is a contradiction in itself. There could be abitrary despotic money that has no connection to an open market valuation like you can most often observe in feudalistic societies (where prices are fixed). By such despotic money the economic innovation process is undermined as there is no free market anymore where everybody has to defend their wealth (and property) position.

Nope, as the seller of XRP could easily buy that "other thing" a moment later.