PactaSuntServanda

In Obey's defense I would say that we have indeed seen fundamental change over the course of the past year. However, all those tiny bits and pieces are by no means significant enough to cause a reversal of the market sentiment. Not even when you consider them as a whole, in my opinion. What we do need is a cataclyst, something that blows the crypto market in outer space. We need a statement by SEC them fully embracing blockchain and providing absolute clarity on the status of digital assets, or the launch of BAKKT combined with overwhelming interest from institutions as well as the average Joe, causing never to be seen trading volumes. Such an event will cause a clear and desperately needed reversal of the bear market.

Thanks for the update. Keep us posted!

Pure gold!

It all boils down to "is going to", "will be using" and "in the future". Until I see actual implementation of XRP trading pairs, the ability to buy XRP directly with credit card or xRapid implementation on Binance none of this all should be taken for granted. It will be a matter of time before the XRP twitter community starts to realise this as well.

The next victim of the bear market. R.I.P.

Good read. I had to grin though while reading the following passage: Using underlying XRP digital assets (not mined or subjected to wild price fluctuation) through registered exchanges which minimise liquidity costs, local recipients may be paid in local currency, assisting the secure flow of money and reduce cash flow restrictions.

I don't want to downplay the significance of this news, but isn't the vast majority of people holding their crypto instead of using it in order to, for example, buy online goods? I, for one, will not use crypto to buy goods online, as the value of any digital asset (except for stable coins obviously) is way too volatile. Perhaps I will do so in the future, but this would require the value of digital assets to stablize.

@Caracappa I am by no means an expert on the topic either, but just to clarify: the Van Eck and SolidX ETF only deals with BTC. No other digital assets, for now atleast. Take a look at this: How Does a Bitcoin ETF Work? Before we look at the potential benefits and risks of a bitcoin ETF, let's back up a step and go over what a bitcoin ETF is. An ETF is an investment vehicle that tracks the performance of a particular asset or group of assets. ETFs allow investors to diversify their investments without actually owning the assets tracked by an ETF. For those individuals looking to focus only on gains and losses, ETFs provide a simpler alternative to buying and selling individual assets. Further, because many traditional ETFs target larger baskets of names with something in common (a focus on sustainability, for instance, or stocks representing the video game industry and related businesses), they allow investors to easily diversify their holdings. A bitcoin ETF is one that mimics the price of the most popular digital currency in the world. This allows investors to buy into the ETF without going through the complicated process of trading bitcoin itself. Moreover, because holders of the ETF won't be directly invested in bitcoin itself, they will not have to worry about the complex storage and security procedures required of cryptocurrency investors. https://www.investopedia.com/investing/bitcoin-etfs-explained/ Another question you ask is why an ETF will increase the price of a digital asset like BTC or XRP. Check this one out:

https://www.coindesk.com/cboe-re-files-vaneck-solidx-bitcoin-etf-proposal The race is back on to launch the first U.S. bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), after Cboe resubmitted its joint proposal with VanEck and SolidX. Announced Thursday by VanEck digital asset strategy lead Gabor Gurbacs, the Jan. 30 filing would, if approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), allow the Cboe BZX Exchange to list shares of a bitcoin ETF trust. Many proponents of a bitcoin ETF believe that the fund will help bring fresh money into the space, creating a more liquid market. The proposal was withdrawn from consideration earlier this month due to the U.S. government shutdown. At the time, VanEck CEO Jan van Eck explained that the companies filing the rule change proposal had been in talks with the SEC, but these talks ended when the shutdown began. To avoid a probable rejection due to the closure, the proposal was withdrawn. Prior to that, the VanEck/SolidX filing was facing a final decision date of Feb. 27, after the SEC extended its examination period a number of times. The rule change proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register, meaning the clock has not yet begun for the SEC to make a decision. Once the proposal is published, the SEC will have a maximum of 240 days to decide whether to approve or reject the proposal. Cboe’s filing comes weeks after NYSE Arca filed its own proposal with Bitwise Asset Management. Like Cboe’s filing, the NYSE Arca proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register, meaning it too, is not facing any deadlines yet. However, January 31’s copy of the Federal Register did include news Cboe’s previous withdrawal, dated January 23.

Rather the contrary: the amount of complainers is only going to increase over time as this bear market continues.

The bear market has been taking its toll on a lot of people lately..

I don't really get your logic. All I was trying to say is there has been a lot of hype since yesterday, but I like to dig a deeper in order to understand how the usage of XRP on the Corda Settler is going to increase the value of our digital asset. According to your logic, it would be nuts if R3 would undercut its own asset. That still doesn't answer the question posed by the OP.

Good question @nicktemple. I've been asking myself this question as well, but I haven't found the answer yet.

I hate to say it (and this is by no means an attempt to spread FUD), but I am with the author of the article on this one. Why? Because I do think she addresses some fair points of critique. It doesn't matter whether we've have discussed it a single or a million times. Facts are facts. No-one had ever heard of this bank before Ripple announced the partnership. After some digging, it turns out the bank is not London-based. Its U.K. bank registration was terminated back in 2017. The bank is neither licensed to operate in the Euro Economic Area nor does it have an onshore banking licence anywhere in the world. I could go on, but I do believe my point comes across. Out of all the partnerships, why does Ripple decide to highlight this one? Why not wait until a few more (well known) banks have signed up, and then release a press release. I sincerely hope Ripple proves the author wrong by partnering up with more banks in the coming year. But until then we should remain critical on our own investment and the progress made by Ripple.

I agree with @BruceWhale . SWIFT has been around for 45 years, yet wasn't capable of providing a faster, more efficient and traceable payments system. This, however, wasn't a problem, because the international payments market had been more or less a monopoly market for decades. There was no incentive for SWIFT to revolutionize its payments system, as there were virtually no competitors. With the introduction of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, SWIFT at first ignored the tech and the birth of potential competitors. Next, they tried to downplay the blockchain technology (https://www.ft.com/content/966f5694-22c6-11e8-ae48-60d3531b7d11). Finally, after 44 years of international banking they launched a faster payments system by the end of 2018 (https://www.swift.com/our-solutions/global-financial-messaging/payments-cash-management/swift-gpi). Taking everything into consideration, it is possible that SWIFT felt the need to revolutionize in order to serve the needs of its customers. Nevertheless, it could very well be true SWIFT felt - at least to a certain extent - threatened by the likes of Ripple, Stellar and Omisego (and others).