Jump to content

opaopa

Member
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by opaopa

  1. Yes, I think I understand you business idea. However, the problem you are describing is in and of itself the whole problem behind a massive market, the FX derivatives market. You solution delivers to the client the same effects as an FX hedge, but according to you, to a reduced cost. As you describe, you then move the market risk problem from you customers to yourselves, which has the potential to (and undoubtedly will, given enough time) bankrupt your business if you don't hedge that exposure. Now, you in turn must purchase FX derivatives. So, how will you be able to compete with your offeri
  2. Why should your client use your service if you are in your turn hedging the exposure with third parties? Your client could instead just use that hedge themselves directly with equal results but with less intermediaries and reduced cost.
  3. The money Ripple pays Moneygram to subsidize their use of ODL is "contra expense". Its income for Moneygram, but it is used to offset the cost associated with the use of ODL instead of being accounted as revenue.
  4. It was mentioned in one of the articles that now has been removed. I'm cautiously optimistic that there might be some truth behind those claims.
  5. Well it would be new information that they plan to utilize ODL with Santander in the USD <> MXN corridor, wouldn't it? (If it is true...)
  6. I wonder if that is really true though. I work with assessing risk in a bank in the EU (and I'm sorry, but EU regulation is all I know). The EU follows the Basel requirements through the CRR (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0575&from=EN). Article 128(3), which handles the "Standardised Approach" (and lets keep to the standardised approach for simplicity's sake), states that : So exposures in crypto currencies would fall under 3 (b) since there is no obligor to your exposure. This yields a RWA (Risk Weighted Asset, the figure that determines your
  7. So then you would say that the total fee is between 15 and 90 bps, which sounds in line with my previous estimate even if that was in the upper bounds of that range. Your methodology seems solid so I see no reason to doubt your figures. I remember Moneygram somewhere stating that they are selectively applying ODL depending on if the transaction is competitive compared to their alternatives. It would be interesting to see how the total fee for transacting ODL in the MXN/USD corridor develops as volume increases - it should go down in theory. Thanks for your explanation, good work!
  8. This is great! Hope you don't mind sharing your methodology instead of only the result? I can start the discussion by explaining how I think that the correct methodology should look like. Total cost = 0,5 * Spread(USD/XRP) + Slippage(Amount(USD/XRP)) + Exchange Fee(USD/XRP) + 0,5 * Spread(XRP/MXN) + Slippage(Amount(XRP/MXN)) + Exchange Fee(XRP/MXN) Where Spread is the total gap between the currency pair on the exchange, Slippage is the additional effects to the average exchange rate of your transaction due to the volume eating up the liquidity in the orderbook on the exchange an
  9. What does "own" in quotations even mean? They have invested $50 million in shares in moneygram and they own more than 10% of the company. Slippage and spread is two different concepts. Spread is the initial gap and slippage is dependent on the size of the trade. We need to count both slippage and spread for each of the two trades. I can't find any figures for this in the other thread but it is a quite long thread and if there are figures in it I would appreciate a link. I can't see any indication that ODL is profitable still, but would gladly be proven wrong.
  10. This is really good information. Thank you for compiling this! If we could also take the spread for ask and bid in to account for each currency we could calculate an average cost for a transaction of a certain size. (on https://utility-scan.com/#/dashboard it looks like ~USD 20.000 is sent a lot at the moment.
  11. Of course! My source is this article which links to moneygrams Q3 earnings report (here is a free version) were the CFO of moneygram states that moneygram is compensated to bring liquidity to the corridor.
  12. That's because the CEO gets his directions from the owners (i.e. Ripple). In my post history is also a spread comparison between USD/MXN corridor through ODL and regular transactions. There is also evidence that Ripple is paying Moneygram to compensate the losses they make by using ODL. I do believe that ODL could be profitable for remittance companies in the future, but I'm fairly certain that we are not there yet. Now, do you have any evidence that ODL is more cost efficient than regular methods? Please, I would love to see some figures.
  13. There is a reason that Ripple literally had to buy part of moneygram to get them to use ODL. It's not saving Moneygram any money in the corridors current state.
  14. I did some further research and I think most are mistaken on the point the article tries to make about two FX conversions: It is the total spread in the transaction which is the problem. While the end customer - in this case Moneygram as the customer of Ripple - is exposed to very little FX risk when using ODL, someone in the transaction definitely is exposed to FX risk, which is the market maker. The market maker is the person who is providing the ODL to the customer and the one who will be holding the XRP in return for providing the liquidity in the fiat currency. Lets theorise that the
  15. This is a valid argument. I guess that the theory why the two conversions would be superior to one is that, at scale, the two conversion would be cheaper than one traditional conversion. Partly because the transaction in itself would be more efficient and therefore less costly, but also because XRP could become the central currency towards which all liquidity could be focused and thereby bring down liquidity costs (i.e. instead of having a USD <-> MXN, USD <-> EUR, USD <-> CAD, CAD <-> EUR, CAD <-> MXN, EUR <-> MXN corridor you would have USD/EUR/MXN/CAD <
  16. Yeah it's only a copy of his file, but if you scroll down there are additional graphs.
  17. I promised an update and here it is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uJuy30O4m9lBzd916G0w-DcG8cB4Snkc5AKEXkQ-S60/edit?usp=sharing, this will not be updated on a frequent basis (by me), but please feel free to copy the document and update it yourselves. All credit to the original creater of the document, https://mobile.twitter.com/LiquidityB, I only altered his graphs. The recent price drop will have implications on LiquidityB's liquidity index going forward (and I think most would agree that the drop is unrelated to any ODL activity), why I would still argue that trailing 30 day v
  18. Yeah it is summarizing the daily volume from the current date and going backwards to a total of 30 days. Every new day the oldest day drops off and the new day is added. I only did it that way because it is also how the "Liquidity Index" is calculated, but it describes how X is a function of Y, where X is volume and Y is volatility. But still the last 30 days are taken in to account. I can't provide any updates now, but I will look in to it later.
  19. The chart in OP isn't the volume but the "Liquidity Index". The sharp drop offs that yo are seeing is an effect of that the volatility of that day is increasing significantly compared to the previous days. (See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pZ2POpljERK-oV3rusaCmq58U2badn5i9WOCIP9Wtmg/htmlview# and compare the value in column I for the dates 9/16/2019 and 9/17/2019 for example). Personal i think it makes more sense to only track volume which is steadily increasing without any drops: See this post for more information:
  20. So I was looking at your google sheet, looking at your methodology for measuring the "liquidity index". Would you care to link to a resource which explain what that index is? I tried google but found nothing. It seems to me that it is trying to measure volume as a function of volatility. But the volatility is captured through the max and min price over the course of 24 hours. How is the measure of volatility over 24 h relevant for transactions which settles in a couple of seconds? Are you implying that the bitso volumes are directly affecting the price fluctuations of XRP over a day? I underst
  21. Yeah I agree with you from a technical standpoint and of course i think that ILP and XRPL are technologically superior to Libra. But i think that these companies are looking at the opportunity from a more practical perspective, where Facebook of course could offer access to their user base which no other crypto could compete with. I really find it hard to believe that these companies would 1. change the conclusion of their already performed due diligence on the technology itself after joining the project 2. reach the conclusion at the same time But of course I do not know and it
  22. Personally I don't feel too happy about this. I remember reading some articles about how different governments were protesting against Libra, I imagine because they are afraid of decentralized currencies. I imagine that the 4 leaving now, are doing so because of pressure from different governments. This speaks volumes about how much of an uphill battle is left before decentralized currencies may reach significant adoption. I would personally have been glad if Libra kicked in the door to widespread adoption, as i imagine it would have paved way for other currencies as well. Just my 2 cents
  23. Ok I’m quite alarmed by this topic. Is the software compromised? I’ve only ever used it on PC.
  24. Agreed. Central parties, be it banks or Samsung/Apple/Google/Facebook, will still fill an important role should the crypto revolution happen. They are not going anywhere - but for the first time people can choose to not use them and still send value across the world, which of course is amazing, but most people will still choose a service provider which helps them with this task. What Ripple needs is to be able to help these central parties fulfill their obligations on AML, KYC and fraud prevention on a timescale which is lightning fast compared to today's standards. Good thing that the mo
  25. So today, basically every transaction within the banking system takes >=1 banking day(s). This slowness of the system actually gives an advantage when it comes to AML, KYC and fraud prevention, as it gives the banks time to react to suspicious transactions and potentially stop transactions. Also, the high fees of moving money at least creates a cost for money launderers to perform lots of transaction to obscure the trace of money. In comes crypto currency with virtually instant settlement, cheap transactions and world spanning networks. You bet that legislators are worried about the as
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.