Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frisia

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No that's what I thought first as well but the labels are 20 03 19 and 20 03 20 and Today. There is no double label as it seems.
  2. It seems to have happened also yesterday (Friday) if the figures are correct. Anybody any idea if this is indeed correct? The liquidity index (even if a multi day moving trend) shows hardly any difference... There seems to be a correlation with volatility but this seems to deviate too much from the weekly pattern.
  3. I understood it should be 72 (n*(n-1)), because we can consider each corridor in both directions (even if theoretical).
  4. That sounds like "rich" in a much wider sense! There's a huge difference in profit and richness 😉
  5. You're still selectively reading and publishing your rubbish. If you would have read the whole thread you would have discovered that there is another patent pending. Second, the use of Ripple products doesn't need any patent. Cancelling a patent (or adding new ones) is daily business and doesn't mean anything!
  6. Well then try to get your thoughts together till you're less confused. In the meantime refrain from calling Ripple's CEO "not honest with his investors". That's like saying I didn't understand what you said but I think you're a lier...
  7. That purely depends on volumes. It was always stated that first "high volumes, low value payments" would be handled in order to create the necessary volumes. Once the volumes are sufficient, also "high value" payments can be addressed, typically and logically a growth model. I think in one of the threads here the highest payment thresholds were described as 50/60k but I don't know if that was expressed in USD or XRP. So yes today we're in the 10s of thousands range, not yet in the 100s and certainly not millions. In my view the millions threshold will take at least a year because you need billions of volumes. Why? Very roughly speaking, if 10mln of payment equals a threshold for payments of 10k that means that there seems to be a sort of 1k factor. Of course, this should be considered per corridor, not on the global volumes. There will be corridors where you will never be able to manage a payment of 1mln due to a lack of liquidity.
  8. Can anybody explain this statement made by Holmes in an interview to CNN? "When answering questions about an increase of the transaction percentage via Ripple’s ODL to Mexico, Alex Holmes stated that it does not depend only on MoneyGram. Currently, it is about ten percent, but to make it as much as fifty or even a hundred percent, the company needs Ripple to bring in more partners, such as banks or financial institutions. These new partners would have to buy XRP on the other side of the trade, says Alex Holmes. Without that, he adds, ODL expansion is not possible." As far as I can see, most typical remittance corridors will always have an unbalanced flow of money (i.e. XRP) vs the destination country (e.g. Mexico). This statement would create an ever lasting issue if it were true. In fact I thought that exchanges, if necessary acting as Market Makers would think of balancing the XRP between exchanges, not by buying XRP "on the other side of the trade".
  9. Why do you think Santander is so interested in the MXN corridor (independent from the originating currency). By the way, the EUR corridor is open so therefore also the EUR/MXN corridor (Spain is irrelevant). So it's just a matter of time before Santander will discover that ODL automatically traces the most convenient settlement method which is either "ex xCurrent" or let's say "correspondent bank method" or ODL. Completely automatic! The only constraint could be some regulatory hurdle which could temporarily hold back European banks to use the token based real time settlement mode. It seems that your mind translates selectively any news or argument into negative terms or thoughts. Is there anything we can do to help you to distinguish the price from adoption matter? You are clearly disappointed by the price and therefore BG becomes a lier? Come on man, at least try to be a bit more balanced in your statements. Who ever said that MG will exclusively work with ODL?
  10. Thanks for the link, very useful and the comments incl @Tinyaccount.
  11. I'm wondering what the real volumes are. Looking at the "liquidity index" and the "utility scan", for some time they showed the same growth even if the utility scan was proportionally lower. However in more recent times there seems to be a divergence in growth rate as well as the weekend volumes which are clearly visible on the utility scan but not on the liquidity index that keeps growing. I know the the liquidity index represents the entire volume included market transactions but I thought that these corridors were mainly driven by payments which seems to be a wrong conclusion. Are we missing something?
  12. I understand that for a corridor which is just operational, so the first payment orders need to be "pushed" through the order book in a somewhat forced mode which increases obviously the slippage. However, there should be a turning point where payments only will be able to sustain the volumes such that the higher the volumes the lower the slippage becomes. Would be interesting to know where such turning point lies because that could facilitate other operators to use the ODL mode for that corridor, increasing volumes etc... I immagine there must be a continuous flow for that specific corridor (e.g. USD/MXN) and I don't know if we have reached that threshold.
  13. Let me first say that I'm not expert but what you state seems counterintuitive to me. But I think where the misunderstand lies. I think we're saying the same thing. With "volume" you mean the volume that needs to be processed. I would call that the "payment volume". And yes, the higher that amount the more orders need to be consumed. My intended definition of volume would be the 'available market volume" that can be consumed by the payment (volume). Now my understanding of markets is that if volumes are very high the orders thresholds are close (e.g. 0.2311, 0.2312, 0.2313, etc), i.e. slippage is low. If volumes are low the orders ranges are wider (e.g. 0.2310, 0.2320, 0.2330, etc.), i.e. higher slippage. So higher volumes will drive down slippage meaning it will become more and more convenient to use ODL. Is that correct?
  14. I'm not sure I understand this phrase but let's start from volumes. The first requirement is volumes. If volumes are high enough payments can be processed. Price is not relevant in this phase for the bank (assuming that the bank is involved in the payment). Now let's assume that we want to process a payment of 1mln and the price of XRP is 0.001. That would still work but a big part of the entire "liquid supply" would be required to process the payment (1bln XRP) and in case of hundreds of payments the system would quickly run out of liquidity. Now imagine a price of 10USD. In this case the required amount of XRP would be 100k and enough liquidity would remain for the rest of the payments that occur at the same time. So price does matter! How the usage of ODL "drives" exactly the price is a different and complex matter and there are many interesting discussions on this chat. Look for it and you will learn just a I did.
  15. I would expect a tight correlation between volumes, i.e. the higher the volumes the lower the slippage but that's not always the case. The two time windows are the same right? The first peak in volume is hardly visible in the slippage as it seems but I might be wrong... Any explanation?
  • Create New...