WayneMoon reacted to Caracappa in Ripple CTO David Schwartz Also Believes 98% of XRP Transactions are Empty
In that perspective we can wave the entire crypto market goodbye as nothing is used other then speculation. At least XRP has a potential usecase (and is used in the Mex corridor) and hopefully will provide more corridors with liquidity in the future. Who knows whether it will or not.
For the individual consumer there are hardly any usecases though...
WayneMoon 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.
WayneMoon reacted to CountZerpula in Suggestion: XRP-collateralized Stablecoins
@JoelKatz - I'm wondering if you or anybody on the Ripple team would be willing to share some perspective on comments that Brian Kerr made recently at the Sept. 12th Singapore Cosmos meetup? I realize that there is only so much that can be put on the table for discussion here, but it's fascinating to watch all of this unfold. Here's what he said:
"We actually had one of our early investors, Ripple, ask us - ‘hey, we have all these MSBs, and they’re sending money .. with XRP using our platform called xRapid. But they don’t want to have the currency risk of XRP. Could you guys actually build us a stablecoin?"
The inquiry that Brian is referring to - how recently was it made, and was it borne more or less out of regulatory concern or that of market volatility? As @MrFreshXRP alluded, we know that Kava will be launching their CDP platform soon, which will likewise issue a stablecoin that can be collateralized with XRP. A few months back, Brian made these comments in the Kava Telegram describing one potential usecase for a then theoretical Kava XRP backed stablecoin (USDX):
" ... if markets were made on xRapid integrated exchanges for USDX, the MSBs that use xRapid with XRP currently could use USDX instead, removing volatility risk while still having the speeds they desire."
Moving forward, how might any of what you're building now interoperate with what Kava is building, and moreover - in which ways can you envision one effort potentially benefiting the other?
WayneMoon reacted to JoelKatz in Suggestions for XRP Ledger enhancements
Since 2012, Ripple has been committed to advancing the XRP Ledger as an open, decentralized system for payments. We have worked together with the community to dramatically increase the decentralization, performance, and feature set over the last seven years.
Ripple’s vision for the XRP Ledger is for it to continue to provide the best interoperability with Interledger. Key to this vision is for the XRP Ledger to remain best in class in security, performance, and settlement features.
We’ve been working on a number of possible features and design changes that could be introduced to the XRP Ledger, and we want input from the entire community about these features. How helpful are they to the use cases that the community is currently pursuing? What changes are developers and contributors to XRP Ledger interested in implementing?
Today, we are posting descriptions of many possible enhancements to the XRP Ledger. They fall broadly into three categories:
Consensus: Consensus is the heart of the XRP Ledger. It’s the way the ledger makes forward progress in a decentralized way. While PoW has provided only limited decentralization and appears to be a technological dead end, distributed agreement algorithms such as the XRP Ledger’s consensus algorithm provide real decentralization and continue to improve in their performance and reliability, year after year. Several of the suggested enhancements focus on improving the robustness of the XRP Ledger’s consensus mechanism.
Performance and Resource Consumption: Due to the nature of public ledger systems, every on-ledger transaction imposes some resource costs on every participant. This creates a trade-off where increasing the transaction rate and lowering transaction fees can increase operational costs and drive some participants out of the ecosystem. Keeping resource consumption down increases the set of participants who can run their own server nodes, improving decentralization. Some of the suggested improvements aim to increase our understanding of the software’s resource consumption, reduce the consumption of bandwidth and memory, and improve network reliability.
Features: The XRP Ledger currently has a sophisticated feature set including account management features, powerful multisigning, a decentralized exchange, and best-in-class support for off-ledger scaling. However, there are always more things it could do. The suggested improvements in this category add new capabilities such as an XRP-collateralized stablecoin and ways to ease the burden of the 20 XRP account reserve.
We would appreciate members of the XRP Ledger community looking over these suggestions and providing feedback. Suggestions for other features are welcome as well. Let’s build a roadmap to continue innovating together.
You can find all of the suggestions in one place on Xpring's blog post. There are also links there to the individual forum posts for each feature for discussions.
WayneMoon reacted to JoelKatz in Suggestion: Deletable Accounts
The 20 XRP reserve requirement has proved to be a bit of an obstacle to some use cases for the ledger. This proposal would provide a path to delete existing accounts, recovering all but one incremental reserve (currently 5 XRP). This would also allow owners of unwanted accounts to clean them up and recover approximately 15 XRP in the process.
There is a judgment call involving what to permit an account to have and still be deleted. In principle, you could allow an account to be deleted regardless of what ledger objects it owned and clean up any problems after the fact. For example, if code later encountered an order, trust line, or escrow for a non-existent account, it would simply handle it appropriately at that time. Orders, for example, would be deleted when discovered to be orphaned. However, that’s probably not optimal. It’s probably sensible to require that some amount of cleanup be done prior to allowing an account to be deleted.
In addition, all code that looks up accounts for trust lines, offers, escrows, and the like must be carefully audited to ensure it sanely handles a non-existent account. Due to the severe harm aberrant behavior could cause to those relying on the ledger, this audit is essential even if the implementation intent is that an account cannot be deleted while those objects exist.
There is a standard draft for this suggestion: https://github.com/xrp-community/standards-drafts/issues/8
This post is one suggestion for an enhancement to the XRP Ledger. See this post for context:
You can find all the suggestions in one place here: https://coil.com/p/xpring/Ideas-for-the-Future-of-XRP-Ledger/-OZP0FlZQ
WayneMoon reacted to Roaring_Twenties in The Big Deal
Coil’s business case doesn’t really appeal to me but I’m the same guy who could have looked at Netflix’s business case and say it doesn’t appeal to me when I’ve got a Blockbuster just down the street from me. I know this because the above analogy is based on actual history for me. Today I have Netflix and a slab of empty concrete sits where Blockbuster used to.
Just because I don’t initially see or appreciate the value of something doesn’t mean others don’t. I think it’s more important to learn what’s valuable for the most influential generation of a time and follow those early adopters. If they like it then I like it and will invest in it. I think that’s what we have with the leadership at coil.
WayneMoon reacted to hallwaymonitor in Who / How did you first find out about Ripple?
2013: BTC hits 100 USD. Meh, it will never work. Crypto exchanges will be banned. Too expensive. Too hard to buy. It will collapse as soon as I have bought it anyways.
2015: Well, I guess I buy some BTC because price will rise and rise. Wow! I can just transfer it without any permission. Only in an hour.
2017 summer: Vitalik is genius! Smart contracts, Dapps and something, something. I will buy ETH and it so fast to transfer. No going back to BTC.
2017 fall: Ripple coin? What is this? Transfer is... YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. Four seconds! This is a joke. LOL. No way this can be so fast?! Can it be? It can! No way I'm going back to ETH or any other PoW slowness madness anymore.
2018: Hodor XRP!
2019: Hodl XRP!
2020: hallwaymonitor joins to the Zerpening club. RIP.
WayneMoon reacted to jargoman in I made a mistake in sending money to a Web page impersonating Ripple's CEO. please help me!!! It seems that you have mistakenly sent a remittance to the impersonation page. My entire property sent 220000 XRP to the low deposit address.
You sent 220,000 XRP to a random wallet without looking into things first? What were you thinking?
WayneMoon reacted to Finesse in I'm out.
You forgot the other piece of advice the most important one at that.
YOU need to walk away for a few years, you're not cut out for this type of stress. Its not for everybody. You're the type of person i would suggest to just invest in index funds for the rest of your life and not worry about investing too much or risk.
We are early adopters, xrapid went live in 2018. You knew this before you invested, that xrapid wasn't even live yet.
You knew ripple was selling millions to institutions
you knew this would take years to get going and change a 50 year old system.
And if you didn't, yet again more proof this isnt' for you (investing). Because you didn't do your research.
WayneMoon reacted to OzAlphaWolf in I'm out.
Realistically speaking, how long do you think it will take to update the global payment/settlements infrastructure?
Your emotional responses to your own fomo decision has zero correlation with the actual work going on in the background. You've had over 1.5 years to become educated about the massive, massive undertaking and vast number of players involved. But you've chosen to sit on a forum and complain unproductively because "muh bags, sir".
This is one of dozens and dozens of reasons that my confidence in XRP remains rock solid and why I feel no panic or outrage about ****coins mooning while the rails are laid for the one that matters most - https://info.r3.com/corda-settler
WayneMoon reacted to Gilligan in I'm out.
Nah. The weekend is when we all hang out in the Zerpening and formulate new tactics to reel in the next round of suckers with factual, level headed and highly informative crap posts.....
Seriously though, why are you here?
Lots of people here are of the opionion Ripple and XRP is in the process of becoming what we all want it to be and have placed our bets. I for one understand it is a case of wait and see if it works out long term, but also wish it would hurry the f**k up.
Just cause you don’t like how long it’s taking you feel it’s your right to “educate” other members in your arrogant, disrespectful manner?