Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. "Ponzi scheme" I think is what you meant--that's the definition you gave. What is the fundamental innovation, can you describe it?
  2. Why? Banks are already money creators, and the asset being distributed is the settlement asset--why would you set the initial distribution to the money creators, why not producers? Why not consumers? Why not a mix?
  3. Great point. If the internet was a product, it's unlikely we would consider the developers of the internet "the market". That is, where the price of the internet is determined and the internet is distributed. It is the end consumer, or purchaser of the product if it's an intermediate good, that we typically think of as "the market". What is being developed here is more like infrastructure I imagine, so, saying we're going to use markets to determine which infrastructure is developed itself is non-sensical, markets don't lead to the development of infrastructure, infrastructure leads to the development of markets. Anyway, the developers would be the developers of the product itself, which is then taken to "the" market for price determination and allocation. The capital market (investors funding projects), initially, and the labour market (developers choosing to develop one product over another), both chose Ethereum over Ripple. The infrastructure so far produced by Ripple (xRapid) has not been selected for use by any market participants, while Ethereum has (despite its flaws!). It's important to mention, we are discussing infrastructure for a monetary system, and all monetary systems are imposed (by government), so the phrase "let the market decide" is more of a marketing slogan than a valid argument. If I can be more succinct, investors sought out projects with skilled developers, developers don't choose Ripple, and projects without developers don't exist. So what we're discussing is one project: the base Ripple infrastructure; and many projects: the base infrastructure layer of Ethereum and the many projects built on top of it. Today, Ripple no longer requires capital market funding and subsequently has acquired many developers of their own through XRP sales, given that XRP can be sold to fund Ripple's operations, so the comparison may be difficult to make, especially when many "valueless" tokens have a non-zero price (another indicator of markets' abilities to allocate resources). But if you were to compare the distribution of resources towards a given platform through the capital and labour markets, I am under the impression that Ripple does not compete with the resources allocated to Ethereum, prior to the ability of Ripple to self fund, and that applies to both the infrastructure layer plus projects on top of it. And if you compare the distribution of users of products and services on the infrastructure layer, I think Ripple isn't winning here either (despite the drawbacks of PoW!). Most importantly, despite Ripple's self-funding, independent developers still do not choose Ripple for developing their projects and appear to be fervently opposed to Ripple--even developers at Kraken, surprisingly. So the "let the market decide" argument Ryan puts forth is better understood as "give us more time to use our resources to force the market to use our infrastructure layer". Well, Coil is Ripple, so "Ripple is a great powerful addition to Ripple" is what you mean, as the project is both staffed and funded by Ripple itself. The use-case of Ripple is as a means of settlement of liabilities, which is the same use-case as every other cryptocurrency token, even though no one wants to acknowledge that simple fact and a great deal of marketing resources goes into convincing people of broad differentiation in the space. And, the associated products and services, creating and destroying liabilities and associated assets, depends on developers, just as the internet depends on developers. The last demo I saw of a project on Ethereum was document verification, where a digital document was input to produce a hash and the hash was used by the client to verify whether or not another digital document was in fact the original. The service was available online for free and anyone could use it. The demo'er was a Prof of Finance from Basel. A very simple project, which may eliminate notaries as a profession from our economic system. Yes that makes sense, as a firm. And we're discussing the allocation of resources to projects, right? I think what's funny here is you seem to believe, a priori, that markets produce good, or even the best, outcomes. They don't! So if you want to continue down this path the irony of Ryan's statement has two sides: he argued that markets make the best decisions (which if demonstrably false! The 2008 collapse is a market outcome), and he argued that markets should be allowed to choose (they already did, and they continue to not choose Ripple--despite the drawbacks of other platforms). I'm not sure here, as when I bring it up the vitriol and dismissive language and tone suggests to me it is a distribution problem--why work to enable a system that is even more unequal than the system which currently exists? Other platforms at least purport to support equality, when in fact they don't, but Ripple is in your face: you are a peasant. Who wouldn't seek to punish that level of inequality, and from a behavioral economics perspective we would expect to see exactly that, unequal outcomes draw punishment from participants even when the punishment leaves everyone worse off. I'm here because I'm free to be here and I want to be here--did you want to put up a gate around your forum? Or better, if I'm not invested in the German stock market, then clearly I shouldn't be permitted to discuss issues about Germany! How terribly democratic of you @VanHasen
  4. Here's an app for couples, call it, say, "Payback". Both parties have to have the app installed for it to function, and both parties must pre-fund their account in the app. When your spouse asks you for a favor (promising to pay you back in the future) you can enter it into the app, which creates an IOU in your spouse's wallet on the XRP ledger that is then automatically sent to you. For example, my wife asks me "can you give me a back rub, I promise I'll pay you back". I go to my phone and enter "backrub", while looking at her and explaining we're keeping track from now on, and the app creates an IOU in her wallet which is sent to my wallet, 1 "backrub". Let there be several categories, backrub, beer, dinner, movie, whatever. Because I know I'll never get paid back by my wife, I take the app to a massage parlor, or maybe a "massage parlor" , and I "pay" for the massage using the app: The app converts a prefunded XRP balance from my wife's account into fiat to pay for the massage, and her IOU "backrub" is destroyed. We both have a record that her debt is settled, and I get back my backrub without having to hassle her for it in the future, because we all know that's never going to happen . The question is, how do you trick your spouse into prefunding their account!
  5. My understanding, correct my numbers if I'm wrong, is that developers in the past chose Ethereum to build their projects. And developers continue to choose other platforms for developing projects. The only project on Ripple, afaik, is Coil, excluding xrptipbot. And Coil is technically Ripple. This is not my opinion, but what I hear most when talking with developers at CC conventions in Zug. Developers do not like Ripple. The problem was so acute that Ripple implemented its own recruiting program, xPring, to woo projects. Let's assume I love XRP, and then let's assume I hate XRP, we can hold a discussion of something relating to XRP (in fact, the same discussion) in both cases.
  6. I like how he used the "let the market decide" argument, when in fact he means to say "prevent the market from choosing one of our competitors". This ignores the fact that monetary systems are not chosen, they are imposed, by governments. The market originally did choose, afaik they chose Ethereum, despite it's flaws. So it's rather duplicitous to use the "let the market" choose argument--people should at least be cognizant that Ryan has no intention of "letting the market choose" and every intention of convincing governments to select and impose XRP.
  7. Wandering_Dog

    Stable coin as iou on xrp ledger

    I think it's also worth pointing out the tragic irony of a "stable coin", which adds a horrifying amount of complexity to an already complex system. If you base a token on a bank deposit, and you then build a structure of debt using those stable tokens as payments, you create some problems: 1) the supply of stable coins is based on "saving", so the underlying bank deposits are created then stored in an account and not used, which necessitates an increase in debt creation (more bank deposits) in order to satisfy payments in the structure of debt that already exists. If you have a sudden "tokenization" of bank deposits, this could actually cause serious problems with payments in the traditional payment system by reducing spending and liquidity in the traditional part of the economy, if the traditional system does not accept the tokens for payments--and why would they? The bank deposit is the bank's means of earning fee income, creating a system which uses these liabilities for payments but generates no fees for banks removes the power from the banks that created them. So the two payment systems would likely never overlap, and the pressure to tokenize (non-banks) and resist tokenization (banks) would be extremely strong given the payoffs to either party if they have it their way. An increase in tokenization should thus lead to an increase in instability by reducing liquidity in the traditional payment system. 2) if banks know their liabilities are being tokenized, they know these liabilities won't move, so their need for reserves decreases, and they may be tempted to increase their leverage. The result would be an increase in instability due to a reduction in liquidity of banks, as they tailor their balance sheets for the new normal--less movement of liabilities on their balance sheet. I get that people want to improve payments and are unhappy with banks, but think about the nightmare we are creating for ourselves by creating such a simple instrument as a "stable coin" within the credit system we already have. It's a really bad idea. Write your gov and ask for CBDC, save ourselves a crisis.
  8. Wandering_Dog

    Stable coin as iou on xrp ledger

    I'd imagine you just make the bank deposit account visible to all, with that balance verified by some authority. The "stable" in stable coin is then rather questionable, if the underlying is the liability of a commercial bank, do they have reserve deposits or deposit insurance to back the asset you are using to create the stable coin liability? And if we tie up lots of bank deposits, or reserves if a bank was making stable coins out of its reserve account, how will that knowledge effect the behavior of creators of those underlying liabilities?
  9. Not sure where this is from, but to clear up any misconceptions, bank deposits always have associated account holders, and paper cash is a bearer asset with a liability recorded with the Fed. Edit: Ah, I think I see what you may mean: more fiat can be created by money creators.
  10. What's the difference between a bridge currency and a currency currency?
  11. I've actually found most of finance to be at the 5yo level, but they put in lots of effort to make it appear like rocket science. _ARCH models are a good example of this: "So you're saying tomorrow will probably be like today?", "Yes dad, obviously tomorrow will be like today. We can predict the future now, it's easy"... On a serious note, I've read every post in this thread and still don't understand what you guys are arguing about.
  12. I understand the problem, we are describing 2 different systems of organizing a monetary economy. You are discussing Germany and the EU (non-monetary sovereigns) and I am discussing monetary sovereigns (US, UK, China, Russia, Canada, etc). The US CB does not need to abide by accounting convention because it is the sole issuer of USD, which is non-convertible. The German Government, NCB and Treasury, needs to abide by accounting convention because it is not the sole issuer of its currency. EU states are not monetary sovereigns for several reasons, namely because the EU has no Treasury and the ECB is not a CB in full. Transactions between NCB balance sheets are not settled in reserves on the ECB balance sheet (as I simplified in the balance sheets shown in other threads). EU LOLR operations are (were) technically illegal according to EU law. The T2 system redirects NCB-created reserves through forced lending to cover net flows in or out of a given country rather than creating reserves. The EU NCBs are not equivalents to the FRB's in the US, as demonstrated with BREXIT, an EU state can leave the EU, which would force the system to accounting consistency if the leaver is a member of the Euro-currency-area. @tar
  13. I understand your point, and I think the meaning is well intended. But I cringe at people saying USD isn't considered money elsewhere. It's still the global reserve unit, a unit of USD reserves is literally the best "money" available on planet Earth today.
  14. Wandering_Dog

    XRapid ONLY uses XRP as counter currency

    Wasn't intended literally, you're not an idiot.