Jump to content

slinuxuzer

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from ClosedMyEyes in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    Not really sure why you are getting so worked up, its my opinion that a truck driver isn't the most likely source for Crypto information of any substance, you jumped straight to insulting me and telling me your brother is smarter than me, maybe he is? But that was kind of a ridiculous statement, since you don't know me and I don't know your brother, but OK. What exactly is your issue here?
  2. Haha
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from KaaKaRmA in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    No offense to Ben, but it's a little hard to believe that a truck driver has any kind of inside information about the "globalist" agenda.
  3. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Ryyy20 in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    Come back? LOL, I hold and continue to hold XRP, if these 589$ nuts are right, you guys will never hear from me again.
  4. Haha
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from ImTheRippler in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    Very funny and mature, best to your brother. I used to be a truck driver, and we didn't have access to insider information about company financials, maybe your brother does? 
  5. Haha
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Paradox in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    No offense to Ben, but it's a little hard to believe that a truck driver has any kind of inside information about the "globalist" agenda.
  6. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from PunishmentOfLuxury in Brad Garlinghouse: FIs are already using XRP in their payment flows   
    So this is a fun story to read and entertaining, but it's complete horseshit IMO, the person that posted it lied right there in the post. They say "I will not be joining with them. I buy Gold and Silver now only" if this person knew for sure that XRP was going to move 1000x in the next six months, they would buy some. This person has obviously had too much cocaine.
  7. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Trendkill in Galgitron's Blog: Frankenmath   
    well that also draws a huge assumption that the XRP distribution stays the same all the way to 100$, of those 66,000 people, over half are going to bail out at 10$, the next half at 50$, then 75$ - the point of the article is, rational mathematics can't be applied to the XRP price problem or any coin for that matter. All these one dimensional "price models" you see floating around are complete horseshit and they lend no weight what so ever to the human element, not to mention critical technical elements like arbitrage, slippage, etc. They try to use simple X * Y math that is utterly laughable. 
    If you want to get a real idea for just how bad these XRP charlatans are missing the mark, go google around and look at some of the predictive algorithms that Google and Microsoft use to predict things like the world cup. I'm terrible at math, but I can tell you, you'll see equations and math functions that even the average Phd candidate probably hasn't seen or can't interpret.
    Galgitron has got this one right, stop watching the damn pot so it can boil, the irony of this is, you are all wasting big parts of your life sitting around hoping your life gets better, when all you need to do is go outside and have a little fun to make your life better, where is the value in reading pages upon pages written by seedy charlatans that know NADA. If these guys could actually write a model to predict XRP's price, you'd never hear about it.
  8. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from galgitron in Galgitron's Blog: Frankenmath   
    well that also draws a huge assumption that the XRP distribution stays the same all the way to 100$, of those 66,000 people, over half are going to bail out at 10$, the next half at 50$, then 75$ - the point of the article is, rational mathematics can't be applied to the XRP price problem or any coin for that matter. All these one dimensional "price models" you see floating around are complete horseshit and they lend no weight what so ever to the human element, not to mention critical technical elements like arbitrage, slippage, etc. They try to use simple X * Y math that is utterly laughable. 
    If you want to get a real idea for just how bad these XRP charlatans are missing the mark, go google around and look at some of the predictive algorithms that Google and Microsoft use to predict things like the world cup. I'm terrible at math, but I can tell you, you'll see equations and math functions that even the average Phd candidate probably hasn't seen or can't interpret.
    Galgitron has got this one right, stop watching the damn pot so it can boil, the irony of this is, you are all wasting big parts of your life sitting around hoping your life gets better, when all you need to do is go outside and have a little fun to make your life better, where is the value in reading pages upon pages written by seedy charlatans that know NADA. If these guys could actually write a model to predict XRP's price, you'd never hear about it.
  9. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from King34Maine in Galgitron's Blog: Frankenmath   
    well that also draws a huge assumption that the XRP distribution stays the same all the way to 100$, of those 66,000 people, over half are going to bail out at 10$, the next half at 50$, then 75$ - the point of the article is, rational mathematics can't be applied to the XRP price problem or any coin for that matter. All these one dimensional "price models" you see floating around are complete horseshit and they lend no weight what so ever to the human element, not to mention critical technical elements like arbitrage, slippage, etc. They try to use simple X * Y math that is utterly laughable. 
    If you want to get a real idea for just how bad these XRP charlatans are missing the mark, go google around and look at some of the predictive algorithms that Google and Microsoft use to predict things like the world cup. I'm terrible at math, but I can tell you, you'll see equations and math functions that even the average Phd candidate probably hasn't seen or can't interpret.
    Galgitron has got this one right, stop watching the damn pot so it can boil, the irony of this is, you are all wasting big parts of your life sitting around hoping your life gets better, when all you need to do is go outside and have a little fun to make your life better, where is the value in reading pages upon pages written by seedy charlatans that know NADA. If these guys could actually write a model to predict XRP's price, you'd never hear about it.
  10. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Tinyaccount in A chart of aggregate XRP holdings by the BearWhale   
    I don't think he moved it around to another exchange, may be he/they did, but I can tell you this, every time we saw XRP leave those wallets to go to an exchange, the price dumped, maybe that was people reacting, but my guess is this person wasn't bluffing, when XRP left those wallets it was sold on the open exchanges.
  11. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from WillGetThere in Coexistence of SWIFT & RippleNet: settlement layer   
    So the way I envision it working is the front end processor, such as a Temenous or SAP, would make a payment and at that point in time it would place that information into a message que, the settlement app, then it could monitor the payments in the que, once a payment completes then it could be processed with a settlement app, such as xRapid. Essentially what I tried to get across in the post is, payments and settlements are two different functions. I'm sure this scenario is a gross simplification of how the actual application architecture would work, but that's it in a nutshell. The key to the whole thing is the tracking field being accessible over the API (read from a program), you don't settle until you've paid. And you can either have a human monitor a payment and then settle or a program, if you want a program to do it you have to provide the API end points and programming logic for that program to determine payment finality. You can be sure that business want humans involved in this process as little as possible, for many reasons.
  12. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from KarmaCoverage in Coexistence of SWIFT & RippleNet: settlement layer   
    So the way I envision it working is the front end processor, such as a Temenous or SAP, would make a payment and at that point in time it would place that information into a message que, the settlement app, then it could monitor the payments in the que, once a payment completes then it could be processed with a settlement app, such as xRapid. Essentially what I tried to get across in the post is, payments and settlements are two different functions. I'm sure this scenario is a gross simplification of how the actual application architecture would work, but that's it in a nutshell. The key to the whole thing is the tracking field being accessible over the API (read from a program), you don't settle until you've paid. And you can either have a human monitor a payment and then settle or a program, if you want a program to do it you have to provide the API end points and programming logic for that program to determine payment finality. You can be sure that business want humans involved in this process as little as possible, for many reasons.
  13. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from KarmaCoverage in Swift & Ripple New Angle   
    I’ve been following the “Swipple” discussions and waiting for someone to articulate this theory and haven’t seen it yet, so I’m going to attempt to explain why I believe Swift and Ripple won’t need to form a partnership in order for Swift Payments to be settled over RippleNET/xRapid.
    First to understand the theory it is important to explain the difference between a payment and a settlement, which seems to be widely misunderstood in this space.
    Imagine you are playing black jack at a casino and the waitress comes by and you buy a pack of cigarettes, if you pay with your credit card you’ve made a payment, but not a settlement, there is a transference of obligations, but two settlements are left to be made, one from the credit card company to the casino and one from you to the credit card company. However, if you gave the same waitress casino chips you have settled this all the way through.
    So let me make the point, Swift is not and does not want to be in the business of settlement. One good reason for this is that would be in direct competition with most of their 11,000 customers, who do provide settlement services, and Swift has publicly stated they don’t want to do that. Each Swift Message includes instructions for how to settle a payment, with details such as which bank and account (Nostro/Vostro).
    This begs the question of, why would Ripple even want to partner with Swift? And if they did why would it do anything to drive up XRP price, since XRP is for settlement and Swift clearly is not in the settlement business? Good questions. The answer of course is there is no “partnership”, at least not in the way most people are envisioning, the common fantasy seems to be Swift unilaterally pushing 5 trillion a day in settlements across RippleNET and XRP, but of course Swift doesn’t manage these settlements, see the issue yet?
    Now on to my theory, in the past few months we’ve seen a few diagrams sourced directly from Ripple Partner websites that show payment flows that include both Swift and Ripple in the same flow. This has always had my curiosity up, because I don’t think someone drew these up for fun and posted them on partner websites, if they had come from Twitter or other dubious sources I could write them off as a hoax.
    Swift releases code updates yearly and has gradually been phasing in more support for ISO20022, (Swift being the primary contributor to the standards creation, some 75%) and after reviewing their release notes and other roadmap information it is clear that they have set a date in November where all nodes on the network are required to update their software to come into compliance with 2018’s update.
    This year's update is mainly about adding end-to-end tracking with a UETR tracking field in every transaction that will be mandatory for each hop/processor on the network to maintain as each message flows through said hops in the Swift network, hence the term end-to-end. Once the deadline crosses then payments using the Swift Application Programming Interface (API) will be able to read/use the UETR field. An API is used for program-to-program communication, essentially when disparate programs need to communicate with each other.
    So after the deadline has been crossed and all nodes on the network and the messages that they initiate or route have the UETR field in them end-to-end AND this information can be accessed by programs using the API (Ripple In this case), then that said program can determine the status of a payment, and if the payment has reached its final destination and been confirmed.
    Why is this important? Its important because if you want a third-party program to provide settlement services for your payments, then you must provide a way for that program to determine when it is appropriate to initiate a settlement - meaning you don't settle until after you have paid, for good reason (the API and UETR tracking allow a program to query payment status).
    Payments fail for various reasons, and we can’t be in the business of settling a payment before it is confirmed to be valid and final. Can you imagine the heart ache with trying to roll back a “Settlement” it’s the equivalent of “Hey I put money in your wallet on accident, please send it back”.
    So to summarize, I believe that after the November Swift Update, the front end processors such as Temenous, ACI, SAP Etc that leverage the Swift network, will now be able to leverage the Swift API to provide “settlement” services possibly with a settlement solution like xRapid. I don’t believe there is any partnership required for this to happen, simply Swift must / is in the process of providing the needed “Third-party extensions” to allow this to happen. Thereby bringing more value overall to using the Swift solution without the need for Swift themselves to provide an actual settlement service.
    I will take a moment to address another question that was raised continuously in the previous thread. Yes it is true that Swift customers can perform the code upgrade now, ahead of the deadline, and surely many have already done so. When you roll out an IT project it is rarely a good idea to cut everything over at once and at the last moment. You want early adopters and to phase things in ahead of time, that gives the project time to react if there are unexpected issues of any type. So the question then becomes, why wouldn't a settlement service be launched already? Why is the Novemeber deadline important and potentially a catalyst for price movement? It is important to understand one thing about the "deadline" it is in fact a "deadline" where after this set date and time, only then can you assume that 100% of the nodes on the network are either in compliance with the new standard OR have been dropped from the network.
    IMO, you wouldn't want to launch a new settlement service that relied on the November update until after the deadline, otherwise you'll see many failures in settlements or you'll see many payments you can't provide the new service for, because XYZ bank on the Swift network hasn't yet updated. You as the project team would likely end up in troubleshooting hell chasing down tons of issues only to find out in most cases "Oh this is one more issue we wouldn't even be talking about if we had waited to launch until after the deadline".
    P.s. There is another  Commentator that has been raising this theory, but the thread is full of arguing and people not understanding his theory, I give this guy partial credit for raising the theory, I wrote this mainly to try and help him clarify his points. Keep in mind we are all on the same team and I assume we all want XRP to appreciate.
  14. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from King34Maine in Coexistence of SWIFT & RippleNet: settlement layer   
    Take a peek at this I wrote up a week or so back - it aligns pretty well with what you are saying, but explains the "how" this might work.
     
  15. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from tar in Coexistence of SWIFT & RippleNet: settlement layer   
    Take a peek at this I wrote up a week or so back - it aligns pretty well with what you are saying, but explains the "how" this might work.
     
  16. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from tar in Swift & Ripple New Angle   
    I’ve been following the “Swipple” discussions and waiting for someone to articulate this theory and haven’t seen it yet, so I’m going to attempt to explain why I believe Swift and Ripple won’t need to form a partnership in order for Swift Payments to be settled over RippleNET/xRapid.
    First to understand the theory it is important to explain the difference between a payment and a settlement, which seems to be widely misunderstood in this space.
    Imagine you are playing black jack at a casino and the waitress comes by and you buy a pack of cigarettes, if you pay with your credit card you’ve made a payment, but not a settlement, there is a transference of obligations, but two settlements are left to be made, one from the credit card company to the casino and one from you to the credit card company. However, if you gave the same waitress casino chips you have settled this all the way through.
    So let me make the point, Swift is not and does not want to be in the business of settlement. One good reason for this is that would be in direct competition with most of their 11,000 customers, who do provide settlement services, and Swift has publicly stated they don’t want to do that. Each Swift Message includes instructions for how to settle a payment, with details such as which bank and account (Nostro/Vostro).
    This begs the question of, why would Ripple even want to partner with Swift? And if they did why would it do anything to drive up XRP price, since XRP is for settlement and Swift clearly is not in the settlement business? Good questions. The answer of course is there is no “partnership”, at least not in the way most people are envisioning, the common fantasy seems to be Swift unilaterally pushing 5 trillion a day in settlements across RippleNET and XRP, but of course Swift doesn’t manage these settlements, see the issue yet?
    Now on to my theory, in the past few months we’ve seen a few diagrams sourced directly from Ripple Partner websites that show payment flows that include both Swift and Ripple in the same flow. This has always had my curiosity up, because I don’t think someone drew these up for fun and posted them on partner websites, if they had come from Twitter or other dubious sources I could write them off as a hoax.
    Swift releases code updates yearly and has gradually been phasing in more support for ISO20022, (Swift being the primary contributor to the standards creation, some 75%) and after reviewing their release notes and other roadmap information it is clear that they have set a date in November where all nodes on the network are required to update their software to come into compliance with 2018’s update.
    This year's update is mainly about adding end-to-end tracking with a UETR tracking field in every transaction that will be mandatory for each hop/processor on the network to maintain as each message flows through said hops in the Swift network, hence the term end-to-end. Once the deadline crosses then payments using the Swift Application Programming Interface (API) will be able to read/use the UETR field. An API is used for program-to-program communication, essentially when disparate programs need to communicate with each other.
    So after the deadline has been crossed and all nodes on the network and the messages that they initiate or route have the UETR field in them end-to-end AND this information can be accessed by programs using the API (Ripple In this case), then that said program can determine the status of a payment, and if the payment has reached its final destination and been confirmed.
    Why is this important? Its important because if you want a third-party program to provide settlement services for your payments, then you must provide a way for that program to determine when it is appropriate to initiate a settlement - meaning you don't settle until after you have paid, for good reason (the API and UETR tracking allow a program to query payment status).
    Payments fail for various reasons, and we can’t be in the business of settling a payment before it is confirmed to be valid and final. Can you imagine the heart ache with trying to roll back a “Settlement” it’s the equivalent of “Hey I put money in your wallet on accident, please send it back”.
    So to summarize, I believe that after the November Swift Update, the front end processors such as Temenous, ACI, SAP Etc that leverage the Swift network, will now be able to leverage the Swift API to provide “settlement” services possibly with a settlement solution like xRapid. I don’t believe there is any partnership required for this to happen, simply Swift must / is in the process of providing the needed “Third-party extensions” to allow this to happen. Thereby bringing more value overall to using the Swift solution without the need for Swift themselves to provide an actual settlement service.
    I will take a moment to address another question that was raised continuously in the previous thread. Yes it is true that Swift customers can perform the code upgrade now, ahead of the deadline, and surely many have already done so. When you roll out an IT project it is rarely a good idea to cut everything over at once and at the last moment. You want early adopters and to phase things in ahead of time, that gives the project time to react if there are unexpected issues of any type. So the question then becomes, why wouldn't a settlement service be launched already? Why is the Novemeber deadline important and potentially a catalyst for price movement? It is important to understand one thing about the "deadline" it is in fact a "deadline" where after this set date and time, only then can you assume that 100% of the nodes on the network are either in compliance with the new standard OR have been dropped from the network.
    IMO, you wouldn't want to launch a new settlement service that relied on the November update until after the deadline, otherwise you'll see many failures in settlements or you'll see many payments you can't provide the new service for, because XYZ bank on the Swift network hasn't yet updated. You as the project team would likely end up in troubleshooting hell chasing down tons of issues only to find out in most cases "Oh this is one more issue we wouldn't even be talking about if we had waited to launch until after the deadline".
    P.s. There is another  Commentator that has been raising this theory, but the thread is full of arguing and people not understanding his theory, I give this guy partial credit for raising the theory, I wrote this mainly to try and help him clarify his points. Keep in mind we are all on the same team and I assume we all want XRP to appreciate.
  17. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from aye-epp in China and the gang of four   
    Yesterday a job posting was discovered at AMEX in their FXIP division and in the job description there was some interesting language that indicated "Santander, Ripple and American Express are launching a block chain service in 2018" it went on in typical job posting fashion talking about how its an exciting time to work in this business unit etc.
    Shortly after it was discovered American Express updated the listing and removed the language. I consider this to be a legitimate leak, posted accidentally by a hiring manager, if you work at a large corporation you know that one of the main and only places employees can change public facing web info is through job postings, this is because hiring managers typically create and publish the postings and there are little internal controls to monitor what they put out there, I think someone just made a mistake and now we know a piece of the puzzle.
    I then took a look at what is the FXIP business unit, apparently this is American Express' cross-border payments group that primarily services business-to-business payments, the web page for this group states specifically you don't need an American Express card to use the service, makes sense.
    So the fact that Santander, Ripple and American Express are teaming up is really interesting to me, this is a scenario that not many have speculated or theorized about.
    Further digging turned up an article from April that I had read and totally forgotten about until I started looking into this and googled AMEX a bit deeper, the article I found from April talks about American Express being the first US based credit card company to be granted authorization to operate in China, even more interestingly it states that they will operate as part of a joint-venture with mobile payment provider LianLian. LianLian and Ripple announced a partnership in Q1 of 2018. 
    So now, we have potentially, what I call the gang of four (Santander, Ripple, LianLian and American Express) teaming up to operate in China. China having banned the trade of crypto currencies, but I see this could potentially lead to not the trade of currencies, but a leveraging of them on the back end to operate this service.
    Finally, the last thought I had as part of this is, maybe Ripple's strategy here isn't to sell xRapid directly to the masses, but to team up with a known and trusted brand like AMEX, so the sales conversations aren't as strained as "hey use this space age technology, from a very new company" but instead "please use this cheaper, faster service, from a hundred year old brand whose commercials you've seen your entire life"
    (Note AMEX's current SLA for cross-border payments is 1 -4 days - I'm sure we can expect a substantial reduction once said new service is launched)
    https://www.americanexpress.com/us/content/foreign-exchange/international-payments/?src=Online&digi=onl_lin_ops
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-express-advances-in-effort-to-access-china-market-1524668149
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express
     


     

  18. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from XRP-JAG in Swift & Ripple New Angle   
    I’ve been following the “Swipple” discussions and waiting for someone to articulate this theory and haven’t seen it yet, so I’m going to attempt to explain why I believe Swift and Ripple won’t need to form a partnership in order for Swift Payments to be settled over RippleNET/xRapid.
    First to understand the theory it is important to explain the difference between a payment and a settlement, which seems to be widely misunderstood in this space.
    Imagine you are playing black jack at a casino and the waitress comes by and you buy a pack of cigarettes, if you pay with your credit card you’ve made a payment, but not a settlement, there is a transference of obligations, but two settlements are left to be made, one from the credit card company to the casino and one from you to the credit card company. However, if you gave the same waitress casino chips you have settled this all the way through.
    So let me make the point, Swift is not and does not want to be in the business of settlement. One good reason for this is that would be in direct competition with most of their 11,000 customers, who do provide settlement services, and Swift has publicly stated they don’t want to do that. Each Swift Message includes instructions for how to settle a payment, with details such as which bank and account (Nostro/Vostro).
    This begs the question of, why would Ripple even want to partner with Swift? And if they did why would it do anything to drive up XRP price, since XRP is for settlement and Swift clearly is not in the settlement business? Good questions. The answer of course is there is no “partnership”, at least not in the way most people are envisioning, the common fantasy seems to be Swift unilaterally pushing 5 trillion a day in settlements across RippleNET and XRP, but of course Swift doesn’t manage these settlements, see the issue yet?
    Now on to my theory, in the past few months we’ve seen a few diagrams sourced directly from Ripple Partner websites that show payment flows that include both Swift and Ripple in the same flow. This has always had my curiosity up, because I don’t think someone drew these up for fun and posted them on partner websites, if they had come from Twitter or other dubious sources I could write them off as a hoax.
    Swift releases code updates yearly and has gradually been phasing in more support for ISO20022, (Swift being the primary contributor to the standards creation, some 75%) and after reviewing their release notes and other roadmap information it is clear that they have set a date in November where all nodes on the network are required to update their software to come into compliance with 2018’s update.
    This year's update is mainly about adding end-to-end tracking with a UETR tracking field in every transaction that will be mandatory for each hop/processor on the network to maintain as each message flows through said hops in the Swift network, hence the term end-to-end. Once the deadline crosses then payments using the Swift Application Programming Interface (API) will be able to read/use the UETR field. An API is used for program-to-program communication, essentially when disparate programs need to communicate with each other.
    So after the deadline has been crossed and all nodes on the network and the messages that they initiate or route have the UETR field in them end-to-end AND this information can be accessed by programs using the API (Ripple In this case), then that said program can determine the status of a payment, and if the payment has reached its final destination and been confirmed.
    Why is this important? Its important because if you want a third-party program to provide settlement services for your payments, then you must provide a way for that program to determine when it is appropriate to initiate a settlement - meaning you don't settle until after you have paid, for good reason (the API and UETR tracking allow a program to query payment status).
    Payments fail for various reasons, and we can’t be in the business of settling a payment before it is confirmed to be valid and final. Can you imagine the heart ache with trying to roll back a “Settlement” it’s the equivalent of “Hey I put money in your wallet on accident, please send it back”.
    So to summarize, I believe that after the November Swift Update, the front end processors such as Temenous, ACI, SAP Etc that leverage the Swift network, will now be able to leverage the Swift API to provide “settlement” services possibly with a settlement solution like xRapid. I don’t believe there is any partnership required for this to happen, simply Swift must / is in the process of providing the needed “Third-party extensions” to allow this to happen. Thereby bringing more value overall to using the Swift solution without the need for Swift themselves to provide an actual settlement service.
    I will take a moment to address another question that was raised continuously in the previous thread. Yes it is true that Swift customers can perform the code upgrade now, ahead of the deadline, and surely many have already done so. When you roll out an IT project it is rarely a good idea to cut everything over at once and at the last moment. You want early adopters and to phase things in ahead of time, that gives the project time to react if there are unexpected issues of any type. So the question then becomes, why wouldn't a settlement service be launched already? Why is the Novemeber deadline important and potentially a catalyst for price movement? It is important to understand one thing about the "deadline" it is in fact a "deadline" where after this set date and time, only then can you assume that 100% of the nodes on the network are either in compliance with the new standard OR have been dropped from the network.
    IMO, you wouldn't want to launch a new settlement service that relied on the November update until after the deadline, otherwise you'll see many failures in settlements or you'll see many payments you can't provide the new service for, because XYZ bank on the Swift network hasn't yet updated. You as the project team would likely end up in troubleshooting hell chasing down tons of issues only to find out in most cases "Oh this is one more issue we wouldn't even be talking about if we had waited to launch until after the deadline".
    P.s. There is another  Commentator that has been raising this theory, but the thread is full of arguing and people not understanding his theory, I give this guy partial credit for raising the theory, I wrote this mainly to try and help him clarify his points. Keep in mind we are all on the same team and I assume we all want XRP to appreciate.
  19. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Ryyy20 in China and the gang of four   
    Thanks buddy, 2018 hasn’t been the year I wanted price wise, but I have hopes we see a bull run soon. That said, 2018 has exceeded my expectations big time as far as product development and partnerships. Im not selling anytime soon.
  20. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Ryyy20 in China and the gang of four   
    Well, it was a nice long wait, but it looks like Chinese Central Bank is going to allow AMEX in, through their joint-venture with LianLian, exciting times.
     
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/business/american-express-china/index.html
  21. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Ryyy20 in China and the gang of four   
    That is what they advertise today as their current "service fulfillment time" meaning that is how long it takes today, the blockchain service they mentioned hasn't launched yet, I point out what the current fulfillment time is, because I expect it to go down dramatically once the new service is launched.
    I also suspect that a 1-4 day transfer time to say, China, is the industry standard today. China is the worlds manufacturing giant today, and virtually every corporation in the western world buys products or parts from China.
    So consider the impact these wait times have on a business.
    Business need to stock more products to avoid "stocking out" Business capital is tied up for lengthy periods, you can't recoup the purchase cost until your payments clear and your products are on the shelf Current fees are very high
  22. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Cesar1810 in China and the gang of four   
    Thanks buddy, 2018 hasn’t been the year I wanted price wise, but I have hopes we see a bull run soon. That said, 2018 has exceeded my expectations big time as far as product development and partnerships. Im not selling anytime soon.
  23. Thanks
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Cesar1810 in China and the gang of four   
    Well, it was a nice long wait, but it looks like Chinese Central Bank is going to allow AMEX in, through their joint-venture with LianLian, exciting times.
     
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/business/american-express-china/index.html
  24. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Flintstone in China and the gang of four   
    Thanks buddy.
  25. Like
    slinuxuzer got a reaction from Quaed in China and the gang of four   
    Well, it was a nice long wait, but it looks like Chinese Central Bank is going to allow AMEX in, through their joint-venture with LianLian, exciting times.
     
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/business/american-express-china/index.html
×
×
  • Create New...