Jump to content

Kal316

Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kal316

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I used to work for IBM for ~5 years. I strongly disagree with you on the first quote, but strongly agree with you on the second quote. IBM has a history of being on the bleeding edge of technology only to fail in the long run. They infamously emphasized hardware over OS, making Bill Gates the richest man in the world. They backed the early internet, but picked token ring over ethernet. They have pushed pioneering but ultimately failed products such as Lotus, Tivoli, and midrange servers. IBM seems to constantly pick the right strategic direction at first but winds getting left in the dust by others when it matters. You see it again today. IBM is a pioneer in supercomputing, artificial intelligence and blockchain - all revolutionary new technologies. I can almost guarantee you that other companies will wind up be the leaders in those areas and IBM will be an afterthought. I was actually relieved that IBM picked Stellar over XRP. It was, to me, an indicator that Stellar isn't going anywhere. But you are 100% correct that financial companies value the fact that IBM "back(s) their solutions with contractual guarantees, SLAs and indemnities and don't have any knotty problems with regulators." I work in financial services, and those items you listed are always, without failure, the top sticking points for establishing MSAs with vendors. It's IBM's tech reputation, financial stability and powerhouse service division that make large companies feel like they are adequately managing risk when they sign with IBM.
  2. Please don't hate me for this... But as someone who's been in the business world for quite some time, the bidding war over Earthport likely has very little to do with Ripple. There are countless other strategic opportunities that Earthport could offer Visa & MC that have nothing to do with Ripple, XRP or crypto in general. Sorry to rain on the parade. I know we are all looking for a light in dark times, but just because a business is a Ripple partner doesn't make every news bit about them Ripple-centric.
  3. I believe that all the speculative news that folks are eagerly anticipating need to come prior to widespread utility. Think about it - infrastructure like custody solutions, Wall St trading desks, regulatory clarity, etc. are prerequisites for massive, global adoption by financial institutions. You're focusing on trains hauling cargo cross-country, which is the endgame, while the speculators are focusing on the rails being laid and stations being built. They are two pieces of the same puzzle. No matter how you slice it, it's good news for XRP. I for one will be enjoying the process.
  4. Remember when Blockbuster was really slow to launch a mail-order DVD rental service (xCurrent) to compete with Netflix, but Netflix was already moving toward streaming (xRapid)? This is that.
  5. Hi everyone, We've often heard the theory that banks are taking a cautious approach to XRP, specifically xRapid, because they want to wait for regulatory clarity around cryptocurrencies. Are they a security? Are they not? Just what are they, anyway? However, if I understand it correctly, the payment flow for xRapid looks something like this: Bank A sends fiat to --> Exchange X, which buys XRP and sends to ---->Exchange Y, which sells XRP and sends fiat to ----> Bank B So here's the question - given that neither bank ever "touches" XRP, why do they care? From Bank A's perspective, they are merely sending fiat to an exchange, and Bank B is merely receiving fiat from an exchange. So wouldn't regulatory compliance be the exchange's problem? The regulatory uncertain asset in question (XRP) is only handled by the exchanges, giving the banks an "out." So what's the big deal? I am surely missing something, and would appreciate any insight you may have.
  6. Hi everyone, Long time lurker here. Some articles from September about Amazon potentially getting into the banking business popped into my head today, here are a couple for reference: http://fortune.com/2018/09/19/amazon-bank-account-prime-bain-survey/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/baininsights/2018/09/25/bank-customers-are-primed-and-ready-for-amazon/#5b552c1113fe This got me thinking, let's say Amazon really is making a push to get into the banking business from the ground up - which solution do you think they will go with: A slow, expensive legacy solution like SWIFT or a next-gen, high speed/low cost solution like xRapid? If moving money costs them pennies, I'm sure that Amazon would market this new bank with ads saying things like "Amazon Bank Prime members can send as much money as they want, wherever they want, for only 99 cents" (or something like that). Instant transfers to any currency worldwide for less than a dollar is a heckuva differentiator. This would also correlate with Ripple employees continuously dropping Amazon as an example of a company that would require faster payments. Let's be clear - this is pure speculation, and I'm hypothetically connecting dots that may have no business being connected, but it's food for thought. If a new bank were to pop up, why on earth would they go with SWIFT over Ripple?
×
×
  • Create New...