KarmaCoverage

A "bridge currency" via being the lowest common denominator... becomes the Stablecoin. This screams Ripple, it's as it the BIS took Ripple's pitch deck and used it to make their list of 'things to fix'. I'm super excited to see the BIS and other CBs so focused on CBDC.

Wonder what "partner network" means? This could be fun to play with, there are plenty of under/unbanked even here in the US. This moves the needle closer to "zero marginal cost".

If there is anything that I'm Not worried about, it's Ripple and XRP. I've watched them from the first time @JoelKatz referenced my comment about the Utility Value of XRP on the 'official forum' in 2013. I've seen both the company, and the service maturation process unfold. It was a global scale mission from the beginning, which is d*mn near impossible, absolutely impossible in finance... yet here we are, continuing to put one foot in front of the other in route to mission success, with many steps behind us. I may never sell my XRP, if I can lend it out. Now I'm trying to get Ripple Inc shares. We are watching the formation of a "dent in the universe". A Ripple, like a gravitational wave moving across the fabric of time space in finance. It's a one way road, there is no SWIFT turnaround.

I know you have been around for a while, and are "in the know", but I came here to say I'd help a Fact Based effort (rippld facts are provable & public, github 🙄). There has existed a sustained and decentralized effort to smear and slander Ripple/XRP and it seems to me that a non-centeralized fact based sharing effort makes sense. Unless I'm misunderstanding?

So a little bit of history on the "Liquidity Risk" of private equity markets, and exotic securities, aka SecondMarket.com which was founded by Berry Silbert, who ended up at DCG. In the wake of 2008, many securities markets 'froze', and there was a cascade of less and less exotic markets which were freezing (bid/ask spreads blow out = no TX volume)... a problem! So Berry left GS I think, and started 2ndMarket to make markets in "illiquid securities". It was a great move! Especially given market conditions. Fast fwd, and Berry is involved in building liquidity, not only for digital assets writ large, but also for PE equity in the Inc's building the industry. This is important, because it gives the public market's investment banking IPO analysts a 'market basis' from which to mathematically justify their IPO per share valuation.

No, the source of truth is the CB's db/ledger. Same with XRPL being the source of truth for XRP. In both cases the paper is a Bearer Note. This convo stretches back to the inception phase of crypto, with people asking "what the hell do I actually have with this key pair?".

Both are a piece of paper in your pocket. Both are recorded in a remote db,.. - the greenback on a centralized CB managed db/ledger. - the other on a decentralized db/ledger, run by whoever (unless it's a permissioned db/ledger, then you know the validators).

I guess the whole point of this thread was the question... If inventory turnover cycles get faster, and you need float less currency, and CBs hold other CB's currency as assets on their balance sheet... Then wouldn't it make sense that if collectively all the CBs could return some of the foreign CB's currency, and both CB balance sheets would shrink?

I would view a Paper Crypto Wallet, exactly the same as a Paper Greenback. There are differences however, those differences I have not given much attention. Just read/saw some commentary on the differences. Greenbacks, are a direct liability on the FED/CB's balance sheet which citizens can hold. CBDC being held directly by a citizen (I think is unlikely) would be the same. If the citizen held CBDC at a Narrow Bank, it would enable the citizen to have a 2nd degree fully backed direct liability of the CB. There were also concerns about transactions when electricity is out, or minors who being under 18 cannot open an account, and elders who simply cant use an electronic device/method. These graphs are from old CBDC working papers, or something else I ran into.

Depending on how CBDC is engineered it will be either "just like cash" or "sort of like cash" or "an improved preferable type of cash". I did a video on this a while ago, with what I'm saying being based upon a BoE paper a few years old now. Basically right now the only private entities who can get an account directly with the CB are licensed banks. These CB Reserve Accounts are used by the CB both for managing/enforcing reserve requirements and when executing expansionary monetary policy. To accomplish the latter, they "hit a button" and increase the balance of a bank's Reserve Account. This creates stimulus for the economy With Leverage, because the bank is running a Fractional Reserve business model, it can loan out $10 to Commercial Bank clients for every $1 the CB creates in the bank's Reserve Account (assuming a 10% reserve requirement). Now CBs are very comfortable with this monetary tool. So when considering CBDC they do not want to create an alternative to cash that has a limit on their conducting of monetary policy. The good news is that CBDC actually has the potential to add a few "monetary policy arrows" to a CB's quiver. The one which rises the most interest is the potential for CBDC to have a negative interest rate... so instead of paying bank's Reserve Account balances an interest rate (paying 0.00-0.25% right now) , they could charge banks a negative interest rate. This creates new useful monetary tools which under certin economic conditions, could be used in the conducting of monetary policy. The other issue which is of key import is, "who can hold CBDC on the CB's balance sheet", like only banks can hold Reserve Accounts? The options are, only banks, only banks and non-bank FI, maybe large Corps, and what about citizens having direct access to the CB's balance sheet??? I think currently the most palatable option is the inclusion of Banks and Non-Bank FIs. This creates the space for Narrow Banks, which do not operate a Fractional Reserve business model. Instead they charge user fees in some way shape or form. In crypto Narrow Banks are the Exchanges who hold a 1-to-1 ratio on deposits, so you deposit 100 XRP in your account, and they hold 100 XRP until you want it (not lending any out). This "not lending", lends it self (pun intended) to CBDCs being issued to Narrow Banks because both the Narrow Bank holds a 100% CBDC reserve with the CB, and because the Narrow Bank maintains a 100% backing on retail deposits the Retail Client also gets a 100% CBDC backed balance in their account. That is important because the reason for Bank Runs, is the nature of the Fractional Reserve banking business model, being that much of the "money" has been lent out and is not "in the bank". Thus if you want "cash" you need to beat everyone else to the bank and withdraw your balance. With CBDC engeernied the way that I explained in this video, there would never be a bank run on a Narrow Bank... everything is 100% fully backed.

The answer to this question is dependent upon where in the economy those newly freed funds flow to. Obviously it will not all go to one section of the economy. It could be returned to bank shareholders via dividends, boosting equity prices of efficiency improving and dividend paying banks. It could be reinvested and lent out, benefiting many more sectors of the economy, and keeping the supply of lend-able money higher, thus interest rates would feel downward pressure. IDK is the real answer, I'm not even sure the banks will be the main beneficiary of the efficiency improvement, it may flow through to Corp Treasury departments who currently float FX inventory. Yes, it has the potential to function faster than management teams who have habits of operating in a business environment with daily inventory turnover cycles. There is a risk of management teams not fully understanding how moving to faster cycles will require some rethinking of their risk management strategies, there may be some new risks, and some risks that have either changed forms or are no longer risks. I could see this increasing the potential for a type of Liquidity Crisis that unfolds in the Real economy, not the Financial System like in 2008. Financial corporations are used to managing flows, and while a change in cycle times could catch a few off guard, I dont think Real economy Corps are exactly used to thinking from a Flow perspective like Financial corps are. Managing flows, and dangers to changes in any of your up stream suppliers, or down stream demand could enable a situation like this covid one, which created a spike in demand for face masks, to flow through the entire system even faster. All potential future supply from manufacturers could be booked/bought and paid for in seconds (theoretically... assuming all actors are automated smart contracts that can execute immediately). Both of your questions are in reality IDK answers, but worth thinking through.

This could be true from their business model's perspective, especially considering How they could be procuring the float. From a holistic systematic perspective (the one a CB would take), whether it is money and you call it "Float", or bubble gum and you call it "inventory". The faster you can turn over your inventory, the less of it you need to hold for a given time period to supply the demand for that time period. This is called an Inventory Turnover Cycle, measured in days for Float right now, but with RippleNet/IoV it will be measured in seconds. This is well more than an order of magnitude of improvement in reducing the Time of the cycle. A good thing, from the systematic perspective... It is the system that has $X0 trillions of N/V floating out there, not any single company/business model.

Well my weak point is finance and financial markets also. It's the reason when I first found Ripple and realized how profound the effects of this tech + mission would be from a financial market efficiency perspective, I had to know what/how/etc. CBDC would technically be more "monetary" stuff than "financial markets" stuff, but everything is networked together. As these markets are digitized the companies building their networks, like RippleNet, will enable the building out of the marketplace's Graph. Think fbook - social graph, google - backlinks graph, uber - rider/driver graph, etc. Then they monetize the "routing" function for searching the graph they assembled... and profit. XRPL's Pathfinding function... charges some XRP to find you the best path for your TX through the XRPL network's graph of Orderbooks and Trustlines edges. Ripple Inc. Charges an admission fee xCurrent to join and use/search/send value through RippleNet's graph of regulated FIs. I hope Ripple inc can use Lending XRP as a means to monetize their XRP holdings flowing through RippleNet without selling the XRP (my plan), like I articulated in How xPool a few years ago, wrapped up into or supporting liquidity for ODL.

Correction, XRPL is a "Clearinghouse" with a distributed core accounting system used to settle transactions. XRPL does not manage margin requirements, which have to be performed either by centralized "off ledger" services/balance sheets. This is where the Crypto Exchanges come into play. Maybe the way that Leverage will be built upon CBDCs, while using the Narrow Bank business model (no fractional reserve, 100% collateralized) is through operating these Stablecoins/Margin management processes. This would enable a much more limited ratio of leverage creation due to Margin Requirements (25-30%) being much lower than the 90% that the Fractional Reserve business model can preform using a 10% reserve ratio. Please tell me someone understands what I'm saying makes sense. I'm finding it harder and harder to find people who can discuss this stuff, like the old XRPchat days? And beat the concept up, where are the weak points? Risks?

The best target to con, is the confident successful male holding higher social status. They are more prone than the rest (anyone can be conned) to believing that they cannot be conned. I'm not saying that BTC is a con, but I think pushing BTC as some sort of investment or financial product, is a half truth at best. It is not so unlike CMOs were in 2007... Yes all the math works out, and yes it makes a legitimate financial product... like a birthday cake made of baked cow dung, covered with a beautiful math icing. More likely, is that when someone is super specialized (finance), experienced, and higher level in a large org; it becomes easy to grow "theory bound" or "paradigm bound" or basically understand how the current market structures are set up and intertwined so well, that changing fundamental aspects of these industry architectures looks obviously impossible and only a fools errand to pursue. To avoid this trap, I try to look at "new" things and wonder how, "the more things change the more they stay the same" will remain true. In doing that I have observed that... XRPL is simply a "Clearing House". Market Makers/Liquidity Providers are "specialists". Banks will function as what Ripple originally called "gateways". Exchanges are like "Prime Brokers" (they also will function as Narrow Banks, which is a new banking business model not using Fractional Reserve methods) ODL is simply JIT Liquidity, and is the "X as a Service" which is denominated in units of XRP. (Welly S. event thanked me for reminding him of this for one of his quora answers, and amended the answer) XRP is simultaneously like a "Postage Stamp" used to pay for XRPL transactions The servers which host/run XRPL function as the "Exchange", which provides a venue for the Specialists and Brokers to operate. It helps to draw analogies from, the New to the "Old". At the end of the day, the "Old" was set up to accomplish certain core functions. As long as humans/markets exist those Core Functions will need to be accomplished, How they are accomplished is what will change with any paradigm shift. In the end, it is not that these Institutional Investors are stupid, it takes some time to digest that much of what you have learned through out your career, is depreciating as the new paradigm replaces the old paradigm. We are 20 years into the retirement of the Industrial age, and the rise of the Information age.