Rutski reacted to Pablo in Incentivising UNL Validators
I've been reading a number of concerns raised over the last few months about the state of the UNL and increasing the number of validators by changing the incentive structure on the XRPL. There have been a number of people pushing this case pretty hard including @TiffanyHayden and @ToastWallet dev Richard Holland.
This week I came across an interesting series of proposals on twitter:
I felt this was worth some consideration and response and had an exchange with @LilBender which he kindly agreed to be reproduced below. His proposals meant going back to look at some assumptions about the current state of play as well so I tried to break this down for my own thinking here:
1. Community validators will "bleed away":
If this is true, I don't see much evidence of it. Community validators were aware of the lack of fungible incentives from the beginning (thanks @Trickery for reminding me of the importance of "fungibility" in this setting). What has changed? Not much. Compare with Codius where hosts went in with high expectations of profits that failed to materialise.
Here's the latest data (https://minivalist.cinn.app/) - this year, we've had 3 more validators join the UNL. Ripple is currently running only 17% of the UNL (and incredibly, only 2% of the mainnet). So validator numbers appear to be going up and Ripple dominance continues to drop.
If anyone is going to claim a "bleed out", they're going to have to present some evidence to support their case.
2. Low/No incentivisation to running a validator:
In fact, there are benefits to the current model that haven't been discussed, particularly when considering the legal risk allocation associated with running a validator/node/mining rig. Legal risk isn't a problem at the moment as the market is immature. Those who've lost money on hacks, scams, security breaches and smart-contract melt-downs have largely been (A) early adopters (B) speculators looking for high risk investments and (C) crypto folk. They almost expect to lose money.
The DAO still hasn't resulted in any lawsuits. That's incredible. But it won't last.
We still don't have widespread enterprise engagement or institutional investors. They and their shareholders don't like losing money. When the big dogs join us, I would not want to be a node/validator/miner responsible for the efficacy and security of a crypto platform. As the financial incentives of the node/validator/mining role increase, so do the legal risks. By not being paid a dime, UNL participants are quarantined to a large extent. Not completely, but significantly.
3. Staking as an option to increasing validator participation:
Staking dynamics are still poorly understood and add systemic risk to the network. Smart contract payouts and staking invites many more bad actors and malevolence into the network and introduces numerous attack vectors that we simply don't understand fully or need.
I'm all for 2nd and 3rd layer tools and apps but changes to the core and consensus model should be carefully considered and done slowly.
In any event, I don't believe the Ripple escrow can be used to pay validators. That's payment for service which makes each validator contractually liable to Ripple (and investors) and creates an unmanageable cost item on Ripple's balance sheet. How do they cap that cost and who decides the fees? And doesn't paying validators increase the sell pressure as they recoup their costs each month?
I'll need to think more about the staking idea from a securities standpoint. As I see it today, the XRP escrow cannot be used to pay investors who have staked XRP. If the escrow is programatically distributed to stakeholders (even if indirectly), that puts Ripple in an untenable position. It's a regulatory nightmare and opens up new problems in their securities cases. I think it's a no-go.
I'm no purist but if investors want staking, there are plenty of other projects to invest in (and lose money on ).
4. That the XRPL is better served by paying stakeholders/validators rather than start-ups:
Even if the XRPL was suffering an existential threat (which I see no evidence of), this model only seems to benefit short-term investors, not Ripple.
Also on Amazon - I'm glad this has been raised because talk about the mother of all pivoters. An online book store pivots into an online marketplace, pivots into ebook devices, pivots into bricks and mortar, pivots into streaming devices and content, pivots into the completely unrelated industry of cloud computing. Will there be more pivots? Will there be mis-steps? Of course there will!
Unpack AWS further - they got in very early (2002-4), they grew the business slowly (2011 is a key milestone for the market) and the competition is only now catching up. This has direct parallels to Ripple who are in a key market before anyone else and I don't see any real competition yet. They are operating in a legacy market and need users to convert infrastructure and processes and laws to take advantage of this new tech.
Ripple must pivot, again and again and again, to remain competitive and profitable in coming years. I'll only get nervous when they stop.
Rutski reacted to LeonidasH in Ripple is now part of the ISO 20022 Standards Body—the first member focused on Distributed Ledger Technology
Rutski reacted to VanGogh in Ripple is now part of the ISO 20022 Standards Body—the first member focused on Distributed Ledger Technology
And this is how the underdog becomes top dog. Ripple will leapfrog Swift. Legard will not sit idle and let Swift sink them.
Rutski reacted to Panosmek in Ripple is now part of the ISO 20022 Standards Body—the first member focused on Distributed Ledger Technology
To help enable this next step in global interoperability and meet the evolving needs of our customers, Ripple is now part of the ISO 20022 Standards Body—the first member focused on Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT).
Rutski reacted to Julian_Williams in Sumitomo buys into SBI and FXCoin exchange in Japan
Sumitomo buys into SBI and FXCoin exchange in Japan
To quote Crypto Eri XRP is now backed by the second biggest bank in Japan
Rutski reacted to KarmaCoverage in Miguel Vias has left Ripple?
There was confirmation and proof on a reddit thread, it has been deleted for some unknown conspiracy reasons, but the fact is Vias is no longer among the lizard people of the Ripple Army. Jed bit him and he is now a Stellar Zombie. Soon he will be hunting other Ripple lizard people, to ineffectively destroy the evil banks from competing with the Bitcoin and Stellar Zombie nations new world order.
Quarantine is the only safe option for lizard people these days. Keep your ID encrypted, and your doors locked!!!
Rutski reacted to Julian_Williams in XRP partners R3- Corda working with the entire Italian banking system
Case Study Italian banks pioneer the use of Corda Enterprise for interbank reconciliation—opening the way to a full production roll-out
Rutski reacted to King34Maine in How Polysign's Custody Infrastructure for Digital Assets Fits in to Ripple's IoV Campaign
It’s been a long time coming, but I think we are on the cusp of Polysign revealing what they've been up to for the past three years. We got confirmation December of last year that Polysign was in early Beta and would be going live in 2020. Also, it looks like there are design changes in order with respects to the webpage. Most of us know Polysign to be a digital asset custodial service/infrastructure platform as David’s answer to a question he fielded from a student at the University of Texas indicates.
Going back a few years, we had our first indication, at the end of 2017, that Ripple would be taking the much-needed steps to begin building the necessary “market infrastructure” (i.e. custody and financial hedging instruments) needed to entice more institutional participation. According to Ripple this “market infrastructure” is needed to grow/stabilize the crypto markets overall but more importantly, to help with XRP. Miguel Vias, Head of XRP Markets commented in the last paragraph of Ripple’s Q4 XRP Markets Report for 2017:
“While customers can use XRP for on-demand liquidity through xRapid, we want to build the necessary markets infrastructure for eventual direct usage of XRP by financial institutions. In Q1, we’ll begin work towards the launch of institutional hedging instruments and custody solutions. Both of these market components are important to institutional adoption and thus are important components of our 2018 roadmap.”
On a Credit Suisse panel discussion (03:20 – 05:07), Miguel Vias alluded to the fact that you can’t build a vibrant crypto ecosystem with institutional players (i.e. hedge funds & investment banks) without first solving for custody or the safeguarding of these digital/crypto assets. Once you do this, you allow for the development of prime brokerage firms, lending, and hedging instruments (i.e. Derivatives, Options, Futures, ETFs, etc).
Just recently, I happen to stumble upon a couple of interesting Tweets from @Arturo_P_A, Tweet One from February and Tweet Two from yesterday. In the first, @Arturo_P_A offers his opinions regarding the synergistic relationship he believes will develop between Ripple and Polysign. In particular, around on-boarding ODL-based exchanges, conflict-of-interest around XRP custody for these ODL exchanges and Ripple, and new use cases. What really piqued my interest is what @Arturo_P_A reveals in the second Tweet. It looks as if we have confirmation of one of Polysign’s first customers or maybe a subsidiary of Polysign, Standard Custody & Trust Company. It appears that Polysign has submitted a request for a custodial charter license in New York that was still pending as of February 6th 2020. Assuming that Standard Custody will, in some way, shape, form, or fashion, have some affiliation with Ripple it made me think about a couple of @KarmaCoverage Medium posts:
What could xPool be? An attempted guess How xPool may work? An attempted guess It seems to me that Ripple now have the necessary foundational infrastructure in place to get escape velocity needed to truly execute their IoV vision:
RippleNet - for the transference of value Interledger Protocol - for seamless connectivity and interoperability between di-separate traditional financial/blockchain-based systems/platforms Codius – for agnostic smart contract development for DeFi products Polysign – digital asset custody.
Rutski reacted to princesultan in Bank of America joins Ripplenet, can anyone confirm?
I'd bet on it being legit. Alex is one of the better ones out there. He's called out a ton of shady stuff in the past.
That being said, I doubt BoA would be on ODL, so we can expect no price appreciation
Rutski reacted to rodneyDDS in Bank of America joins Ripplenet, can anyone confirm?
Polina from Ripple messaged Alex and asked if he could take down his post, that they were planning a larger campaign around the announcement soon.
Many On Twitter called this image a fake, so yesterday he released a video going through his inbox and clicking on the Ripple conversation and scrolling through it. (Undeniable proof) video has since been deleted.
Was skeptical initially, but this is no scam or fake news. As to if BOA will be using ODL, I think that's still a bit unclear.. We'll find out once the official statement comes out.
Rutski reacted to WrathofKahneman in Bank of America joins Ripplenet, can anyone confirm?
Ripple could not explain as it was a BoA patent. A patent attorney I spoke with noted that a continuation had been filed, it is clearly noted on the actual filing, not the Google summary. Eventually it will work its way to the public portal files. They also mentioned it was somewhat de rigueur to file a patent defensively to keep future uses from being claimed by other actors until it is clear how the space will mature.