KarmaCoverage

I'm wondering if you Set up an issuing acct with Auth Trustlines Issued a bunch of assets to authorized trustlines ...Then disabled Authorized Trustlines on the issuing acct. What happens? I'm also curious about how Rippling would work with Authorized Trustlines? https://xrpl.org/authorized-trust-lines.html#:~:text=The XRP Ledger's Authorized Trust,has no effect on XRP. https://xrpl.org/known-amendments.html#trustsetauth

On top of that a single TX could be multi-hop and all hops execute in the same ledger close, along with all the other unrelated TXs included in that ledger close. There was talk about how this batch processing method, foils HFT guys a while back. That said, there are likely arbatrage opportunities between last/next closed ledger to sort out, but there is risk there also. They just made a change to the Pathfinding algorithm that when I read it, my first thought was that it opens the door a little bit wider for one method. Remember the 4 second ledger close "speed limit"? You can go faster than that Routing computation. There would still be risk though.

Some great insight here, starting at 49 minute mark. In some subtle ways, I can hear him describing Ripple as what "crypto" needs to become a contributing factor to the real world. https://youtu.be/fhT1mseRLTs

Just wondering if anyone has played around with this? What DeFi services can we now use? Also, wondering how receptive the ETH community is to have wXRP now?

Before the bitcoin folks started getting Ripple folks kicked off Twitter (even for not tweeting) anyone interested in the intersection of Insurance & Blockchain would run into me. Ended up speaking to 2 F500 companies about it, and a few others. To the best of my knowledge nothing material has been accomplished yet. My namesake KarmaCoverage is actually the business model for a P2P coverage service. An Uber to the Insurance/taxi company. Trustlines are required to create the network effect & leverage. I'm honestly shocked nobody else has done it yet. Now with Federated Sidechains being a thing, it seems even more obvious.

Good points. I think locking up value of any type is useful. @wojake How is this method compared to Checks? https://xrpl.org/known-amendments.html#checks I think you can set a future date, before which time the check cannot be cashed, thus the funds are locked up (unless the check us un/under funded).

Does anybody remember when @ripplerm did the market making liquidity pool? Im curious if anyone remembers the methods? I know you had to trade XRP for an Issued MM asset. Then somehow the liquidity was provisioned across many other Orderbooks on the DEX. He even had periodic performance reports.

I am definitely not an expert, never even read it. Probably should do that though, it's going to be an important standard. That said I do think this could be possible...

ISO20022 has come up in both of my last two Ripple Twitter chats. Any blockchain not ISO20022 compliant is a Deadman walking. That's just the way its going to be once the standard goes live next November. I'm pretty sure Ripple was on the standards steering committee, or whatever they called it. People keep bringing up some short list of less than 10 crypto projects that are ISO 20022 compliant. I get the sense that this will usher in a new wave improvement in the global monetary infrastructure.

That should be possible with RippleNet. I believe when a bank signs up for RippleNet they get their own private XRPL/Rippled, then they can send payments to other RippleNet banks in seconds. I could be wrong, I dont think Ripple has ever clarified that that is how RippleNet is set up.

Her Tweet says they are working through RippleNet. I dont see XRPL coming into play till regulatory clarity is had and the SEC case is over.

I wonder how much of this Ripple knew at the time. Also if I'm reading this right, Lubin & ConSensys sold ETH to the public, and gave millions to JP Morgan to buy Qorum and position it as a non-big bank competitor to Ripple.

It feels like the US is letting the sand slip away between our fingers, on maintaining a leadership position in the global Monetary system. I just don't get it. I can see some big bank lobbyists trying to buy more time, but at what expense? None of this makes sense if you are coming from a "do the best you can" perspective.

Quality in/out is not a price fixed situation, it's is a percentage of flow fee. As it should be IMHO.