Jump to content

lysistrada

Member
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About lysistrada

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've considered this possibility and I think it's entirely probable. The thing that the anti-XRP types don't want to understand is the the SEC is not here to destroy companies because they've possibly run slightly afoul of securities law while trying to innovate treasury management functions. That's not what they do. They're here to protect investors and the public and they only want to destroy bad actors. I think we'll possibly see some amount of fine being paid by Ripple for past misdeeds, corrective measures being taken (or referred to that have already been taken), a letter of non-enforcement or some statement whereby the SEC blesses Ripple/XRP and then we'll see an IPO. From there, Ripple as a company is under the purview of the SEC and XRP by the CFTC as commodity. That's my best guess, but I do think there's a strong possibility that the IPO has been strategically planned alongside SEC oversight. They have openly used the services of a former SEC Chair as part of their legal strategy. There's a reason for that.
  2. I personally like when the anti-XRP lobby takes non-news and spins it negatively, such as in this article. It shows how threatened that world and their BTC-heavy portfolios are. You take a massive company like MG, with massive legacy systems in place, and the fact that it can't all be run on Ripple tech within months is just reality. Not news. Not the end of the world. Maybe they'll use ripple tech later for remittance with FastSend. Maybe they'll use ODL for settlement. That it's not being used means nothing other than not all great things happen at once. The sad part is the pro-XRP community falling for it and then fighting over it. Guess what, you're probably not going to get rich over night, just like Ripple and XRP won't dominate payment and settlement overnight. But that's how every legitimate investment is. That's how every successful company grows. Incrementally and over time.
  3. Ok, so first off. Thank you for the topic. While I am going to play devil's advocate below, I want to say that don't really disagree with you. And for those of us who aren't into XRP because we simply are trying to make some fast cash, your timeline is entirely acceptable and - in fact - in my case I accumulate gradually and HODL based upon literally the price projection you have suggested; $30 USD in a decade. I suspect this is very conservative, but that's literally the number I use. I would be delighted to reach that. And... I would like to first support your point by stating something that I have always said. Most banks - save for some of the ones with truly speculative principal investing arms like Goldman - really just want to make money through usury. That's it. They make money by lending money at a higher rate of interest than they payout for those who put their money in their bank. It's the age old formula for true wealth building. At their core, this is who banks are. Now... that said... They have to be able to send money domestically and internationally because that's what customers want/need, but in the end that's not their focused profit center. Lending money is and so innovative new tech is really not that compelling to them even though being able to send money cheap and fast could be used by certain banks seeking to currying direct customer favor both on the consumer and business side. But I agree that this is a value prop for them, but not one that's going to make their turtle pace really increase much. Here's something you are not thinking about, it appears. At least in this paragraph you've written. I don't mean to suggest you are not aware of it. But the value prop for ripple's software is not only that when used in tandem with ODL/XRP for settlement, nostro/vostro accounts become unnecessary... it's also an entirely superior bi-directional messaging system that drastically reduces their risk of loss from fraud and abuse. This should not be disruptive tech, because it's so simple and basic, but it is because banks are so backward in their adoption of technology (to your point). And this aspect - I believe - is in fact compelling enough to make banks move fast. I will confine the remainder of this discussion to the domestic US ACH system for simplicity, but these concepts apply to international money transfers as well. I own a small business that needs to move money relatively fast in order to be successful. This is not a theoretical, by the way, this is true. And in order to move money from my company to a recipient on a same-day basis, I have to use the current ACH system and I have to originate an ACH credit. This system, as it presently stands and as it is in all US banks, is where I communicate to a central bank via a NACHA file to move money from a central bank to my intended recipients bank. Now, I do this through my company's bank, but in order for it to move fast, it literally is transmitted from me to the central bank immediately without my bank even noticing. Here's the problem, the central bank has no idea if my account has sufficient funds to cover the settlement of this. When I was first being underwritten to do ACH credits, I couldn't figure out why... like, dude... don't give me a full body cavity search in order to send money... just don't let me send more money than I have; simple... but it turns out that the system is not setup that way; there's no automated validation of funds in the originating account in place and it has to be done manually which is expensive and manpower intensive. So...at this point and after years of my moving lots of money safely and without issue upon settlement, my bank has underwritten me to be able to move $100K per day without any need for their oversight based upon my business account's average daily balance. So... let's say that I fall on hard times and I am of the morally flexible sort... I could literally drain my business account and then conduct an ACH credit of $100K to an account I control and then drain that account before anyone notices. Think this doesn't happen? It happens via various iterations to the tune of billions of dollars of year. There's a whole element of bank fraudsters who do this literal thing all the time. Billions of dollars in loss annually to taking advantage of this system. Enter Ripple's messaging software, which used to be called xCurrent. It is bi-directional so rather than an overnight domestic payment simply being a matter of a bank trusting someone that they won't move money they don't have, there's an actual two-way validation process in place. So, as it is now, uf I want to move money from my account on an overnight basis via domestic ACH credit, it's a matter of being like, "yo, central bank... move this" and it happens because I am simply trusted which is inherenty flawed and insecure... with Ripple's messaging software, however, its like, "yo... central bank, move this" and the central bank is like, "hey bro... sure, but let me just make sure you have funds to cover this. Ok, you do. Cool, green-lit"... Let's be clear. This is not amazing technology. This is not machine learning/AI sort of stuff. The only amazing aspect is that it's taken until now to do this. So think about this value prop in terms of the ultimate agenda of banks. They want to be usurists, but they ALL want to not be defrauded and lose money and they all get massively defrauded now. If they're all on this system, they all will do better and they know it. Banks don't love to cooperate, in general, but they have a legacy of cooperating around things like this which will benefit all of them entirely by cutting down on fraud and abuse. I am suggesting that this factor will make them move faster than you might think. Not fast. No, banks don't move fast. But perhaps faster than you think. So let's say they move fast to adopt this tech... and this tech just so happens to be pre-packaged to work well with XRP-based settlment via ODL. It's age old shoehorn strategy whereby this desperately needed tech is the shoehorn and ODL is the shoe. Thank you for the topic. It's a really good one. And I don't see what you've written as anti-XRP at all. I see it as being a realist and I wish there was more realism in the pro-XRP world. Cheers.
  4. I've analyzed that situation very thoroughly. He indicated he had a "source" and the manner in which he got the prediction both right and wrong is consistent with there being a language barrier. Crypthawk's native language is English and he's UK-based. He received massive backlash when making the prediction. He defended the prediction in a way that was not consistent with a guess. He was deeply adamant which is why it caught my attention. Before he was proven somewhat right, I had deduced he either had a credible source or he was borderline unstable. He defended his position as a hill to die on, which is not what you do with a mere guess when you are trying to build an online reputation as a crypto guru. You hedge your guess with qualifying alternative scenarios. He doubled down on his position when everyone - even actual Ripple insiders - called him crazy. And then he ended up being mostly right. That prior source is also entirely dry now, it seems. There were also other indications that back up my hypothesis. You would have to be deeply familiar with that very specific set of events to understand why I reached this conclusion. I don't have a tinfoil hat on here. Maybe just like a little tinfoil. Incidentally, I do have extensive experience with Russian hackers and how they randomly happen upon information. But if you were deeply familiar with the situation and the individual I mention, you'd know that the proposition of him making an "educated guess" is actually much more outlandish than my explanation. The guy understands technical analysis of financial markets, but he's not a strategic mind when it comes to the nature of Ripple. He's the opposite. He doesn't care at all about the tech or the nature of the company behind XRP. In fact, he fights with people like that; like me.
  5. I don't intend to disagree with the overall sentiment of your statement. My experience is that - by and large - things of significance do tend to get leaked. I agree. I will just note here, however, that the largest Ripple announcement was with regard to Moneygram and the only "leak" came from a relatively obscure crypto personality called CryptHawk (who is much less obscure now since being the leaker) who only sort of got it right. My assessment of his source on this leak was that - most likely - he had contact with some sort of Russian hacker who had a RAT installed on the computer of one of the paralegals working for the MG or Ripple lawyers overseeing the transaction. This was a major event for Ripple and MG. This was the most significant event thus far in crypto, IMO, with regard to mainstream adoption. And the sole leaker was largely dismissed - mainly by the XRP community - and the leaker himself was a very obscure, relatively irrelevant individual who leaked the information. This was no actual insider. Here's what I think: I think Ripple/XRP news is big for US. But I think - by and large - comparing Ripple/XRP/Crypto news to Apple's iPhone model releases is a massive overestimate of the majority of the population's concern over Crypto. Virtually everyone knows what the Iphone is. By and large, most people don't know what Ripple or XRP is and - as far as bitcoin/crypto goes - most people still just don't care. As such, it's just much less prone to leaks. I think your error here is an error of scale. It would be leaked if there were really that many people who cared. Yes, the "XRParmy" seems large to the crypto space, but the crypto space is still very, very small. That said, I do think most of the partnership rumors are BS. But I don't think a massive partnership would necessarily be leaked in any significant way or at all; at least not now. We've seen a big one go largely unnoticed until it was a done deal. Good point of discussion, however.
  6. Everything Ripple has been doing with XRP positions it not as a primary currency, but a bridge currency. Let's just get way ahead of ourselves and say that all of the nations of the world converted to digital currency. There's still a need to conduct FOREX, to send money overseas, etc... in fact, it's arguable that there's a greater need to do so. Never has There has to be a pool of liquidity, technologically aligned to properly transfer and settle between various digital currencies. I don't see any digital currency better positioned to do this.
  7. It's a badass visual for sure. It brings a lot together for me. We hear about all the clients and partnerships and such but often seeing it like this is truly valuable for understanding the progress being made.
  8. I don't think this is anything big. At least people have been suggesting in the Twitter XRP world that this is some indication of something with Google. I don't know if that's what you're suggesting. But I think it's just a visual display of Ripplenet that some pro-XRP developer overlayed upon Google maps. I think the person who originally posted it probably clicked on the link below at some point and then forgot. Then saw it later.
  9. So... I think I understand the difficulty you are having... the following is an admitted over-simplification and leaves out a lot, but it should work for our purposes here. You're conceiving of the process wrong and borrowing mentally from legacy concepts involved in correspondent banking. With Ripple tech and ODL, it is so much lower friction and it literally flows like this: SENDER --> Exchange A (purchase of XRP) --> sent as XRP --> Exchange B (sale of XRP) --> RECEIVER. Money and information flow in a matter of seconds. XRP is the vehicle by which money is sent and settled in real-time. The tech will send money - not just the promise of money - but actual, settled funds in real time. It's about getting the constituent players on the tech and part of the program so as to open up major corridors of payment flows.
  10. Just to sort of bring this full circle here. My experience with the ACH/NACHA system in the US and how deficient it is, as well as how inflexible money can be, is really at the basis for my massive support for Ripple and XRP. What they are doing is revolutionary. Your thoughts on creating something are similar to that of my own which I have had in the past, however I do have a programming background and a staff member who could roll something out along the lines of that which you mention. And yet,,, I have also determined the immediate ROI would not make it worth it. It's a matter of me asking myself what business I want to be in. Yes, I could create the system you mention, but then I would have to become a fintech/payments company and my primary business would no longer have my direct attention and that is a small and growing profitable entity in a vital niche. I have had issues focusing in the past, so I have resisted this sort of move thus far in favor of simplying amassing a respectable stack of XRP and believing in the underlying utility of it. I am confident that we'll have this technology very soon. In the meantime, if you have strong financials, your bank should be able to give you the ACH function you need. If it's nominal amounts, by the way, Quickbooks can be setup to do ACH. If neither of those are an option, vendors like dwolla, checkbook.io, paysimple, plooto, etc can all be used, though be prepared to hand over a lot of information whether it's a bank or an outsourced ACH vendor. Given the current limitations of our technology, all entities willing to move money relatively fast for you are assuming an amount of risk and they need to mitigate that by seeing "evidence" (in parenthesis because this evidence can be easily faked) that you are legit.
  11. I own a small business as well. Honestly, if you're talking about daily amounts of $100K or under, getting an ACH debit function on an overnight basis or even same-day basis through your bank is the way to go for now. That's if all you care about is getting money fast from customers to you. The cost is minimal and money moves pretty fast on this basis, as it is. Not nearly as fast as it should, but much faster than money moving across borders which can take days. I can get 99K from a client in under 24 hours if they give me their bank account info. I'd love to get it within minutes, but the benefit of that is negligible to me versus waiting 24 hours. That doesn't mean there is no value with regard to Ripple/XRP in domestic payments. But with regard to use of Ripple's various offerings, including XRP-based settlement, the benefit for domestic payments is not so much for the business or the customer, other than perhaps a modest increase in speed, but the benefit is much more so with regard to the bank facilitating the transfer because Ripple's messaging system and it's ability to settle in real-time reduces the bank's risk in the process. As it is now, the current ACH system is uni-directional and when it seeks to move money overnight or same-day, it's actually directing a central bank to move money into your business account and it does so even before it has verified that the bank account that is being debited has the money. As you can imagine, this causes a degree of loss for banks. A large amount of bank fraud is based around this concept and withdrawing money from the beneficiary account before the chargeback can hit. This is why Ripple's bi-directional messaging is superior because that verification/validation occurs before money is moved (ie, rather than "move money from A to B," you get, "Does A have X amount of money? Ok, then since it does, move X amount of money from A to B"). The current state of ACH is also why you have to be pretty intensely underwritten in order to do both ACH credits and debits of significant amounts. I personally am very bullish on ripple and XRP, but I have not sought any mechanism to speed things up for my business along these lines as of now because the cost to have something built like that doesn't lead to the required ROI to invest in that infrastructure. But one day either ripple or another company will come along and make it easy and affordable.
  12. Honestly, while I would love if this were true, if I had to guess I think this magazine did some lackluster online research and got it wrong and just wrote some incorrect information that people are latching on to with way too much vigor. I think that if Swift is doing anything it's via the pathway of GPI to R3/Corda with use of XRP for settlement, which is great as well. But this whole headline just seems to me like a relatively obscure publication getting it accidentally wrong.
  13. Did the Celsius Network pass your sniff test for legitimacy? Nexo did for me. I'm still not going to put my bag of XRP on their platform, but I think I could safely do so. I admittedly only looked into Celsius in a very cursory manner, but when I did I just wasn't sure I was every going to trust them with any of my holdings. Then again, I barely trust Binance with my holdings.
×
×
  • Create New...