KarmaCoverage

Member
  • Content count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

KarmaCoverage last won the day on August 3 2016

KarmaCoverage had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About KarmaCoverage

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. That sounds similar to a post I made here. In short I dont see any issue with the Fed running it's own RCL (or other ledger) and stacking a few ledger/networks on top of each other with varying permission sets and tweaked for specific use case needs. The international RCL ledger/network can play it's specific role, and ILP can connect the various layers of ledger/networks. What if final settlement in "real USD" occurred within a ledger like the last sentence... "This would keep the Fed's core ledger where the "real USD" is issued, insulated by 2 layers for all international & domestic payments."
  2. I think I have, but if you would like me to expand on a subject just let me know. I appreciate this niche community, have learned quite a bit here, appreciate that @JoelKatz @Vinnie @mDuo13 and many others post/answer here. There are many non-Ripple employees here also who I have connected with and learned from. So if it would be helpful for me to expand on any topic, I am happy to give back, hoping it helps someone. I enjoy financial stuff anyway. Edit: & @nikb
  3. Also keep in mind that the whole idea of "a market for float" enables companies with large cash balances managed by their Treasury dept to deploy/sell that cash as Float, in "a market for float". So other companies can use the Ripple international payment solution to achieve the lack of a need to fund accounts with "dead money" in each country they conduct business in. If Apple/Google started their own siloed ledger, there would be no "market" and no other "market participants", Accomplishing much less value creation.
  4. There are so many applications for RCL, and I think Ripple Inc has their application covered. So I'm not sure I would be much help to Ripple Inc at this stage. Still trying to get a team for KarmaCoverage, and P2P insurance is starting to become a buzz word (some buzz words was inevitable). The industry is waking up, but I doubt any big guys will be willing to really do what needs to be done. Too many "leaderships" are afraid of, and see the world through, the view of "cannibalizing" their current revenue streams. They prioritize protecting "legacy pools of profitability", over "future pools of profitability", this strategy is a proven loser, but still pervasive.
  5. Not sure if I would bet on anything in the near future, or not sure about anything regarding timing, but there are some arguments on the side of "go IPO", and there are some on the other side "no IPO" as well.
  6. I would think the point IS a risk mgmt game. By going public, as the quote below says, the company has to disclose a lot of information, and maintain those disclosures. This does come with a solid cost, as the quote below indicates. So why, why incur extra costs? One reason could be Trust there may be an opportunity to gain Trust from international banking organizations who would be the organizations being recruiting onto the ILP/RCL Internet of Value solution. This way all those companies can get a better look at and improve confidence in Ripple Inc as a organization. --- As a side note, XRP, and stock in Ripple Inc, have very different risk profiles. Almost not even comparable, some correlation, but apples to oranges. Surly (I think) Ripple should be capable of tapping some private equity. But selling a small portion to the public markets could give a huge valuation bump, and potentially improve the Trust I mentioned above. Fbook only sold 8.4% when they went public, but that 8.4% represented about 75% of the paid in capital. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512235588/d287954ds1a.htm#toc287954_7 Not a bad deal.
  7. Coverhound was a Google affiliated insurance start up. I think Google hit some kinks in the insurance industry, and pulled the plug for now, to reassess. They also invested in Lemonade in the last round. Wonder if Affirm is the Max Levchin start up? I had called them years ago about helping then "gateways" solve the charge-back risk problem. Wondering why Enigma.io is not in on this? Seems like a necessary group to form imo.
  8. The word "float" does not exist in the article. This reads like an intro to ILP & IoV.
  9. There are losses that get shoved down into "sub coverage types" like Law and Ordnance, or Mold and Fungi. My guess is this helps with actuarial justification with the Office of Insurance Regulation filings. In addition, there are other coverages that are not broadly applicable, yet cannot be either removed or significantly reduced on a policy. Stuff like Personal Property required to be a minimum of 50% of main the coverage A amount. Which is an acceptable level of coverage for most, but not all clients. There are also other types of coverage, like Other Structures coverage, when there is no other structures on the property to be covered.. cant remove it from the policy. Now the carriers want us to up sell Equipment Breakdown coverage (like a home warranty), Identity Theft coverage (which can be good for older folks who get scammed), and then all the other Endorsements for things that normal people would think is already covered, like Water Back up, or just plain old water coverage (25% of loss events) etc. Many are now using credit, and/or an insurance score to "give discounts"... but whenever you hear, "give discounts", it means they "took rate" increasing premium, and are offering a subset of the market, with good credit, the opportunity to "get a discount" on the newly increased rate. It is also common for the main policy coverage amount to be equal to the mortgage amount, not the Cost to Build, as the law requires. This is effectively over insuring the client. I wrote about that here.
  10. Thanks RippleDigital, Parametric Insurance is something that will be growing in popularity and will grow in market share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_insurance Some of the reason for this is distributed ledgers + smart contracts... KarmaCoverage would fit into this category, although KarmaCoverage does not legally qualify as insurance. Another reason is because currently insurance contracts are stuffed with crap clients dont need but have to buy, in the same way that the cable companies are reselling all that content and forcing the users to pay for all of it, even if they dont want it. As for the "niche coverage products", there are some, very few, niche parametric solutions, I believe most are in the reinsurance markets, not the consumer markets. http://www.swissre.com/corporate_solutions/solutions/parametric_products/ http://www.kinanco.com/parametric-insurance http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2016/11/22/how-parametric-insurance-can-help-after-natural-ca It's kind of funny this term is growing in popularity recently. If anyone here can do an up to date ngram search on the term I would love to see the results. I think the term is growing due to some 3rd world market stuff, like weather related policies for farmers. But I think distributed ledgers & especially smart contracts are also feeding the terms growing popularity. They (the industry) got this alllllll backwards. There is no trust between the client and the insurance provider. At most there is some trust between the client and me (broker, sales guy, relationship manager) even there, I have clients who shop with another agent, and come back saying "you are trying to screw me!" because the other agent gave them a quote without running the MVR reports, or gave discounts that will not get through underwriting. This is not an example of trust in a relationship. Its a dirty game, bait and switch tactics are prevalent, it often does not pay off to be 100% honest, but in my office we do it anyway. Some of the big boys do understand that the industry has screwed the pooch on Client Trust. This is a key talking point for Lemonade.com (BTW, they rescinded their P2P claim) There is a reason I like RCL as a technology for KarmaCoverage to use, and this Trust element is a major reason. Think about how RCL works for a minute and it becomes obvious. The "establishing digital trust" will be done only where trust truly exists, ie; between peers. This is why P2P is such a threat to the insurance industry. All financial services are rooted in Trust. The industry has lost it, and P2P has massive amounts of latent potential to re-establish this Trust in a new type of service offering. I have said it many times, even with all the fuss and attention the distributed ledger industry has/is giving to banks, I believe "Risk is the killer app" for distributed ledger tech. Everyone is exposed to it, hence, everyone needs a "wallet" on ledger. Once that is accomplished other financial services can be layered on. Recently I found something in a policy that was a clue to how the carrier is handling the "disappearing deductible" feature. Now I am starting to think that it will be the Banks that disrupt Insurance. It is going to be a wild ride for insurance executives over the next few years!
  11. Pathfinding is the business model that electric companies are transitioning to also. Away from hub & spoke centralized energy generation, and distribution. Basically, network or "grid" management, and routing of energy through the most efficient paths. Energy generation will be preformed by most nodes in the network. https://youtu.be/XtQoPcscFts?t=1m43s
  12. XRP's counter party risk is the network, making the counter party those running the Rippled nodes. This is functionally a trade out. Trading out the "financial" counter party risk of a single issuing financial institution, accepting in it's place a type of collective of "node operators" as the counter party. In this way the "counter party" risk is being both distributed & changing form, from a financial risk to a node operator risk. Risk almost never disappears entirely, but it can be mitigated in an improved fashion. edit: @MrX Yes, if XRP is on balance sheet. Then Yes, the balance sheet (ie the company) is exposed to risk of that asset decreasing/increasing in value. @faisalkhan What are your thoughts around banks holding XRP on balance sheet? You seem to think that idea has some issues. In short I dont see any issue with the Fed running it's own RCL (or other ledger) and stacking a few ledger/networks on top of each other with varying permission sets and tweaked for specific use case needs. The international RCL ledger/network can play it's specific role, and ILP can connect the various layers of ledger/networks. What if final settlement in "real USD" occurred within a ledger like the last sentence... "This would keep the Fed's core ledger where the "real USD" is issued, insulated by 2 layers for all international & domestic payments."
  13. TX/Payment paths are calculated in reverse first, then forward. My understanding is that this sequence is intentional and for the purpose of addressing this concern.
  14. Yes it is still a key goal to be achieved. It was only after seeing that presentation that I became confident that Ripple Labs (at the time) had an actual business model and was not just another promising technology. There are 2 component to this 'market maker' role that are new/significant. Since a TX can make multi hops in a single ledger close, there is no settlement risk, (I think this is explained in the video?). This multi hop capability is very significant and new. New because this is not a reality in existing systems at all. There is always a chance that a payment does not settle, SWIFT & others do drop the ball, err I mean payment, sometimes. Significant because all great innovations ultimately reduce / mitigate / get rid of, some kind of Risk. The Ripple solution not only gets rid of the settlement risk, but also the time for settlement is reduced to mere seconds, from days... Remember Finance as a math formula has nothing to do with money, it is a tool to measure iterations of Time. Time is expensive, and like interest, this expense is pervasive & embodied in all products and services. A reduction of cost, is a reduction of risk. The second aspect to "why have market makers at all" is WACC. (think cost/risk of float) So called "market makers" are likely to be financial institutions, it was not a mistake or misstep for Ripple to focus on these industry participants specifically. All companies have a WACC, and of all industries, companies operating financial institutions have the lowest WACC. It is the spread between the WACC of product/service companies, and the WACC of financial institutions, that Ripple will improve via the "market for float (shrinking the spread) . This will occur when financial institutions with a low WACC begin competing to provide/sell float to the Treasury depts of product/service companies. --- How are the market makers paid back?... Immediately after each TX on RCL. In the process of each TX a MM supplies some floated capital enabling the TX, and they get a fee/spread for playing the part of an enabler. They will in all likelihood be operating their own Gateway, so if they want to Cash Out, they simply un-issue the IOU balance from RCL and credit their bank account via their own Gateway. In an ILP world, not much is changed. The only real change is that everything does not need to be logged on RCL, and the MMs are able to run their own private ledger. Thanks for the mention @Haydentiff, let me know if you have any other questions. This is an important topic. This is their actual business model. The technology is great and fun, but without a business model, death awaits. Look to other ledgers for proof of how a, lack of business model, plays out. edit: I didnt realize this was 2 pages long, and so I didn't read the whole convo, please excuse me if I re-said an already said statement.