KarmaCoverage

I think Codius became Bletchley by Microsoft. I have seen it noted at the bottom of some Bletchley documentation, and a video with Marley Grey (guy in charge of BaaS) where he credited Codius being the start for smart contracts. R3's Cordoba is also interesting.

https://ripple.com/dev-blog/escrow-paychan-fix1368-will-available-3-days/ https://ripple.com/build/amendments/ I think escrow went live in v0.60.0

I'm not sure settlement is "over existing payment rails". “The Internet of Value is already operational and it is ‘Powered by Ripple’.” I think what is happening, is happening nostro/vostro style, rcl.bankA > ilp > rcl.bankB , "rcl" being the "rails". ...Dip a toe in first.. use the new tech.. but do it the old model way = adoption cycle stage is early.

@14:02 and a previous mention. https://soundcloud.com/bitcoin-podcast/the-900-billion-problem-how-ripple-makes-bank-to-bank-transfers-compliance-faster-cheaper#t=14:02 I know there is Connect, which I think started out as Gatewayd, and includes a bundle of other stuff, including RCL I believe... ...but this is the first I have heard of "x current". Is this the old MM software that was "Steam" or "Stream", (I dont remember exactly what it was called). They used to have 2 options, Connect and Something, one was geared towards Banks and payments usecase, while I think the other product was for Liquidity providers & Market Makers. The site only shows Connect & ILP now.

As I understand it, ETH serves much the same purpose on Etherum as XRP does on RCL. Transaction fee with Utility value? I could be totally wrong?

There is definitely need to protect "investors" as most of these ICOs have no legitimate business model, and will not spend their funding wisely as Ripple Inc did. Investing in regulation, compliance, building an actual clients list. I dont look at these things because most are just hope and crypto dreams. As for the IRS, the tax code is an economic based system. So if you make any kind of economic gain... wages, capital gain, barter, etc.. the IRS wants their cut. Only question is which bucket of taxable income does it fall through? I think cap gains is the correct answer here.

There may be legal ways to work it so that the Contribution users make into the KarmaCoverage system are tax deductible, like a charitable contribution. I dont have the legal expertise to weigh in on this. Correct, "Risk never disappears", that is why I focus on the Transfer of risk. I know very few situations where risk actually disappears. Maybe self driving cars will disappear most of the risk of getting killed in a car wreck, certainly my chances of getting hoofed by a horse are less now than if I was born 100 years earlier, so it can happen. Even then, the risk sort of only changed character... the risk of getting hoofed by a horse is reduced, but risk of crashing a horseless carriage is increased... what is the net effect on risk exposure? idk

The ideal situation would be to set up a consortium with a group of insurance companies, flush out the "how do we work together" issues (some of which is outlined in the next segment on RCL), then build out the application, and take it to market. If my other start up goes as well as expected, and soon enough, I may fund this initial phase myself. I know that R3 has started engaging with Insurance companies, via Accord I think. I think Ripple Inc had a much harder road to travel down, but now that they have beat the path, one would expect the big players in the Risk Markets to follow suit fairly quickly. The other method would be to launch a large crowdfunding effort and fund it via users. This method has some chance of success, because of the emotional reaction most people have towards "Insurance", but would still take a large amount of organizational efforts. This would also be the worst for the incumbent players, because if the distribution can be achieved without the incumbent player's distribution channels... um, that would hurt as much as the "bitcoin dream" of P2P payments and leaving the banking institutions out of the payment market would have hurt banks. The difference being, that payments work best with Banks acting as custodians. However in the Risk Markets, KarmaCoverage is intended to be an application for end users to engage with each other. So if that critical mass hurdle must be achieved (there is high vitality engineered into the service offering) ,then either the incumbent players help achieve that critical mass, or if it is achieved without them... I'm unsure how things would unfold for them in the P2P market segment, a disingenuous copy cat strategy is about all that is left.

Exactly why I didn't do anything when ETH launched. I think there is more clarity on how SEC will handle the issuer of these "ICO"s... but my real quandary is... How will the SEC/IRS handle the ICO Buyer's capital gains/losses on these illicit 'securities'?

I have seen them. Their focus on ROSCAs is very close, in fact KarmaCoverage could be a form of a ROSCA if you wanted to look at it that way. I can tell if they have developed an application or not? I think Ethereum may be to "heavy", for the full application, maybe it could be used for a portion though. RCL works just fine and the Banks have bought in, as well as the Regulators have reviewed the tool. I wanted to participate in the ITO for Ethereum, but the legality of it concerned me, still does, and I am not sure that Corda cant accomplish much of what Ethereum hopes to do. To be honest the technical aspects of this (Ethereum vs Corda) are over my head. --- I now look at KarmaCoverage as a "Ripple for the Risk Markets", the difference is, with Ripple the financial service is Payments, ie relocation of funds from one acct to another, interledger or otherwise... ...rather with KarmaCoverage the financial service is designed for the Risk Markets, the purpose of the service is to create network effect on individual user's rainy day savings. Where a user in the network who experiences a loss event, (aka A Liquidity Risk Exposure Event), the funds are on ledger and able to flow to that user. Due to the network effect created by the financial model, the amount of funds can exceed their individual's own savings. The degree to which the funds can exceed the individual's own savings depends on that Risk Market's characteristics. I find it somewhat ironic that Ripple Inc is using RCL and ILP to build a Market for Liquidity, and while my research has continued, I have moved towards viewing Insurance through a "liquidity lens", providing coverage for a Liquidity Risk... therefore RCL as a tool, can be used to create a Network of Liquidity for a Stated Purpose, ie "to cover a specific Liquidity Risk Exposure".

@Mercury Here is the 2nd segment, https://banknxt.com/60989/02-p2p-risk-markets/ Edit: the 3rd segment touches on RCL for the Risk Markets, and the 4th touches on ILP in the Risk Markets

https://banknxt.com/60988/01-complexity-resilience-risk-markets/

RCL can be used as an Open Market. I would think some of the stuff that trades 'over the counter' could be brought on ledger. RCL can also be a network of exchanges, which offers the exchanges verified settlement in public. RCL can host many orderbooks, and find a common denominator of value between them (via XRP, or a path through multi orderbooks). RCL can also be used for issuance of IOUs, which can represent pretty much anything. It is an accounting tool which offers a lot of versatility. It is when you include ILP, and think of a network of RCL ledgers both private and public that RCL becomes a bit more than just an 'exchange'. It is an accounting tool which offers a lot of versatility.

Then you have identified a market. Next question is, "how big of a market" coupled with, "what is the cost, both cost to build & at the unit economics level". Exposing these illiquid markets to public RCL stands a chance of rubbing some of these 30% spread + hard edges smooth. I f*ed up and paid a bit over 80% annual interest on a small business "lease". This type of predatory financial behavior creates a "zero sum" situation, and the prize for winning these zero sum games needs to be collapsed to 0%. RCL provides a "public arena", and sunlight tends to clean out the predators. I think the cost to build could be collapsed to near $0 using opensource dev talent, and near $0 tx cost using RCL. This applies to the 1st world lease predators as much as the 3rd world situations which I have observed. Funny story, I did some triangular arbitrage in Fiji just by walking back and forth between these two banks exchanging between usd, aud & fjd. I didnt make much, my friends thought walking back and forth was a waste of time. But this showed me just how out of whack some of these markets can get in the real world. They can be on the same street and leave gaping arbitrage opportunities open.

Having a hard time putting the right words together, but RCL is a bit more than just an "exchange". If the exchanges we see listing XRP and joining the public RCL represented as accounts on RCL, than RCL becomes a network of exchanges. As banks, other financial institutions, and maybe corporate users, get accounts on RCL it could morph into a huge international liquidity pool. Which I think is the goal. but it has the potential to be more than what I just said. I dont know anything about Amazon Cash, but I dont see why Amazon could not use RCL to provide an exchange-ability for their Amazon Cash. The question is, do they want to give their Amazon Cash the ability to be traded in a secondary market. The primary market being when the Amazon Cash is first issued.