Jump to content

Tako

Member
  • Content Count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tako

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

433 profile views
  1. Ah, ok, I see now. I’ve never made distinction between cbdcs and cb issued digital currencies, thanks for pointing out the difference. Anyway, in that case CB issued crypto (not cbdc) may be used within target2..
  2. You are right. “Crypto asset” is a much broader definition, but they include CBDCs imho. My logic: just as cash is an asset class in itself, crypto asset can mean any dlt based cryptocurrency, including CBDCs. Maybe my understanding of crypto assets is not correct though. Do you have another definition for it, that makes it clear that CBDCs are not included?
  3. I’m not sure this news is about xrp per se, but it is clear that target2 opens up the possibility of using crypto assets for banks. We are concentrating on xrp here, but crypto assets can also be CBDCs or crypto (xrp?) backed stable coins, like kava labs’ usdx (or eurx in this case) that would make perfect sense as a value transfer tool providing instant settlement without a central counterpart (ecb) and prefunded accounts in the Euro zone.
  4. Was it ever confirmed that actually she said this, or was the quote just created by an xrp enthusiasts?
  5. As for the misterious 200M, isn’t it possible that Ripple simply bought back this amount from Jed? This way Jed could sell 200M at once (good for him) without affecting the market (good for Ripple). Win-win. There must be a point when Ripple thinks that the prices are low enough to spend some money on decreasing the obvious risk of having a renegade holding too much xrps...
  6. My understanding is that liquidity providers who lend XRP, or the owner of the XRP (e.g. banks, if they hold XRP for transactions) will be the ones who gain/lose on the slippage. If the sum of the transaction cost is positive, they just take it as profit. (In this case FX related cost of the transaction will be almost zero to the originator.) Otherwise, slippage will be part of transaction cost to the originator. However, do not forget, that originator will have choices, so if the loss due to slippage seems to be greater than the cost of the next cheapest transaction type (e.g. via nostro/vostro) than the user will most probably chose the cheaper option, so the transaction does not use XRP, therefore there is no loss for the XRP holder. (The potential loss on slippage is somewhat limited by the system.) The sum of these losses and gains, in addition to the appreciation or depreciation of XRP will be the cost of holding XRP, which is hoped to be positive at the end.
  7. Where there is smoke, there is fire. True, from a distance vapor generated by a fog machine can be mistaken as smoke. As all of us are distant observers, it is easy to fall for this trick. Healthy scepticism helps in not shouting fire every time, before a closer look of the source is possible, but total resistance of accepting the general wisdom (smoke=fire) can result in burn damage.
  8. OK, so the latest info is that he is bullish. Thanks God, that we got confirmation from him! The suspense was killing me.
  9. Apparently, a few days ago he thought that the bear market is still to come with lower prices. He must have re-evaluated his previous thoughts. Then, re-evaluated again, and deleted his tweet. Very consistent.
  10. I think we need to understand that Ripple’s XRP stack is a double edged sword. On the one hand, Ripple can use it to inject XRP to exchanges, so FIAT/XRP pairs, hence liquidity is increasing, which is an absolute must for increasing the chance of xRapid use. Whether these XRP „sales” to the exchanges are free of charge, below or above market price (or not even sales, but some sort of lending agreement) is irrelevant to the XRP market price, as the exhanges’ XRP stack do not represent a selling pressure on the market. By pre-funding exchanges this way, Ripple simply makes sure that XRP is available at the market so market participants (including investors or speculators) can buy them. (XRP just sits on the exchanges’ accounts until someone wants to buy them.) In other words, exchanges are the gateways of fresh money influx and the more gates Ripple opens, the better chance there is that fresh money will find its way to XRP. Also, I am sure their large stack helped Ripple to draw in big investors in the beginning, and is now allowing them to fund several projects that are propelling other XRP use cases, which ultimately broadens adoption and increases price. These are all good things and positively affecting XRP price (in the long run). Large stack also makes it possible for Ripple to dream up a scheme where they are the lender of last resort in the long run… (this point also have a negative and positive side..) On the other hand, large XRP stack in Ripple’s hand is also a risk factor in the eyes of the market participants. Currently, we are ensured by the escrow that Ripple will not damp their stack on the market. (If it wasn’t obvious from the beginning, that they will not cut the tree under themselves…) You can argue, that 1B XRP/month released from escrow, and sold to FI’s will have/have a price dampening effect, but I only see this an issue if Ripple sells their stack to e.g. banks, who will at one point have to sell their XRP on exchanges by the use of xRapid. This case „fresh” XRP would appear on the market on the SELL side of the books, so this would create selling pressure, and may negatively effect the price. We can easily assume that the xRapid users' (who also decided to hold XRP) intention is not to crush the market, we can also assume that they will do this cautiously. On the same edge of the sword the large stack means that Ripple has monopoly over the market. Theoretically, they can manipulate the price of XRP to their liking even with the 1B XRP/month. Also, let's not forget that Ripple is a private company, and although, now it seems that they are benevolent actors who found a win-win situation where profit taking is possible with the betterment of the society (i.e. creating IoV), their policy can change e.g. if the leadership/owner structure changes. This is a risk and will continue to be a risk as long as Ripple have their huge stack. How much this affects the price, I am not sure, but I think this negatively effects the adoption of XRP as standard, as it all comes down to trust. (as in trust in Ripple by market participants) The large stack may also be a problem point in the eye of SEC when deciding whether XRP is a security or not. (I do not have evidence, this is just an assumption..) It seems that the debate is because people tend to look at only one of the „edges” of this sword, while ignoring the other. From what I see (based on the publicly available info) Ripple is masterfully wielding this sword, and so far nothing suggests that they will cut themselves with the "poisoned" side, moreover, they may be able to use the pointy end to stab their adversaries in the fight for dominating the sector. However, we cannot dismiss the possibility of self harm (small cuts and bruises) during the battle 100%. And if you do not believe me, I attached a pic as an unquestionable proof of the above.
  11. Great detective work! Do we know the 47 countries that are using UPU Clearing solution?
  12. One may say that people who developed some kind of emotional attachment to Ripple (or their investment in XRP) can be upset by a symbol that they do not feel fully representing their perceived idea/function/concept of XRP. (e.g. it is not powerful enough, it is a childish design, etc, etc) The big hoopla is therefore just an expression of these emotions. Others may argue that symbols have a very important role as an easily and "universally" recognizable, ultimately simplified carrier of complex ideas/ideologies and as such, their shape and form matters. People expressing their opinion here about how the current symbol sucks big time think that the officially accepted form is not worthy to convey the idea behind XRP.
  13. Isn't that fantastic? You can write it to look like the one above, and it will still be accepted as official. So, is it a good design, or not? ?
  14. The fact that the handwritten symbol/sign will slightly differ from the printed sign does not mean that the sign is a bad design. The bottom line is: Can you write it by hand easily? Yes, you can. Is the handwritten sign resemble enough to the printed version, so it is recognizable as the symbol so it can be differentiated from anything else? Yes, it does. Everything else is up to taste. PS: To be honest, I am not a big fan of this design, but honestly, as long as it serves its purpose and meets the above criteria, why should I care? It's just a symbol after all, noone will give a second thought about it in one year or so.
  15. Well, I beg to differ. It IS the symbol with my handwriting. You cannot expect anyone to meticulously write two separate lines with a tiny little gap between them in real life. Therefore, the handwritten symbol will always differ from the printed one, especially when written in one fluid stroke.
×
×
  • Create New...