Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deep_dive

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I read this update recently: https://ripple.com/insights/xvia-opens-new-doors-in-emerging-markets/ and curious to know if xVia makes use of gateways to allow for fast payments. Does anyone know or can point me to more resources on xVia works?
  2. This is all speculative but I can see Circle using crypto as an intermediary for cross-currency fiat transfers so USD -> some crypto -> KRW, and using poloniex to source that fiat-crypto liquidity (I know polo doesn't trade fiat right now, but perhaps Circle is looking to add that in the future). That would essentially be what Ripple is trying to do except Ripple would ideally like to have XRP as the intermediary crypto whereas Circle might not care and would choose from any of the fiat-crypto pairs on polo as the intermediary.
  3. Thanks, haven't taken a look yet how volatility management would work so this is helpful!
  4. I've been thinking a lot about how xRapid fits into Ripple's overall strategy and how financial institutions might want to use it. Given that ripple has yet to release many details on how xRapid exactly works, these are preliminary conclusions summarized from what I have read on this forum and my own thoughts; I would love to get feedback and hear any thoughts or additional use cases. Making payments to regions with limited correspondent banking relationships: xCurrent seems to only work with banks that have already established correspondent relationships with each other. If a payment needs to be made to a bank with limited correspondent relationships then it must go through a long route of multiple correspondent banks before arriving at its destination. This would likely be costly and slow if any of the intermediary correspondent banks are not using xCurrent. xRapid would cut down the cost and time by allowing the payer to send xrp straight to a liquidity provider that trades in the destination bank's "home" fiat currency and xrp. The liquidity provider would then send the payment denominated in local currency to the destination bank. This use case depends upon there being sufficient volume and enough liquidity providers willing to trade local fiat and xrp to make xRapid competitive in these regions Companies can use xRapid to make international payments directly to their customers worldwide. If a company in the US needs to pay a supplier in China, it could send xrp straight to a liquidity provider who trades xrp and RMB, trade for RMB, and then send RMB to the Chinese supplier's account. Of course the US company could still make the payment by means of traditional correspondent banking or xCurrent but using xrp may be faster and cheaper depending on exchange rates and banking fees. Reduction of nostro and vostro accounts. I have seen this mentioned many times here but only recently started to understand how it might work. Maintaining correspondent banking relationships is expensive for banks since they have to keep money deposited in other currencies at other banks. While that money is just sitting idly, it could be generating income by being put to other purposes such as lending or investing. Nostro and vostro accounts essentially impose an opportunity cost. Same with companies that need to make fast payments to employees or suppliers around the world. They currently deposit money with banks in all the countries in which they operate to be able to make fast payments. Having money sitting in multiple foreign accounts is costly for companies since it could be using that money to build their business. By using xrp or xRapid they could essentially offload the nostro vostro accounts to liquidity providers. Similar to the 2nd point and using the US company again as example, instead of having to keep a vostro account with a Chinese bank for means of paying Chinese suppliers, it could simply buy xrp using USD whenever it needed, send that xrp to a liquidity provider trading RMB/xrp who would then send RMB to the Chinese suppler. In all three use cases above, the payer can hold onto xrp but wouldn't necessarily need to as long as they could buy it using their local fiat. Thus, xrp is literally a bridge currency to other fiat AS LONG AS there are market makers/liquidity providers willing to trade fiat for xrp. I foresee xRapid facilitating the transfer of payments between payer -->liquidity provider --> payee similar to how xCurrent operates by using escrow and atomic transfers. I think it's definitely an uphill battle for all three use cases to play out since they rely heavily upon there being highly liquid xrp markets around the world. With that said it seems like Ripple is moving in the right direction to pull it off.
  5. I know Ripple is currently targeting the global payments space but it seems like XRP could also be ideal for day to day transactions such as a customer paying a retail merchant for goods or services. We have seen how bitcoin's scaling issues have prevented it from becoming a transact-able currency in terms of buying a coffee from your local coffee shop but given XRP's 3-4 second settlement time and being able to handle up to 1500 transaction per second, seems like XRP could also be a consumer facing currency in addition to being used for global payments.
  6. So seems like in order for this to work, they both would be have to accept xrp and be willing to hold onto it?
  7. Hey sorry for the slow follow up, I appreciate the response. In your example does that mean both the US and Japanese banks accept xrp and are willing to convert it in-house? Who is doing the converting from USD to XRP and XRP to JPY and if it isn't done in-house, wouldn't there still be a delay in settlement since wiring of fiat is involved?
  8. I've read elsewhere that RippleNet and ILP allow for faster payments and that XRP allows for faster settlements. I just want to check that my understanding of XRP's role in fast settlements is correct. Say I'm a bank and want to pay $100 to a bank in Japan that only accepts yen. Currently I would use a market maker who handles the currency conversion so I send $100 to the market maker and then the he converts it to yen and sends it to the Japanese bank. The payment is complete and RippleNet/ILP has sped this up, but settlement still has to occur where my $100 to the market maker must settle by traditional (probably?) correspondent banking and the market maker's payment of $100 worth of yen to the Japanese bank must also settle by traditional means. The delays occur from two settlements. If instead I use XRP to pay the market maker, so I pay him $100 worth of XRP and he then pays out yen to the Japanese bank, there is only one "leg" of the settlement that must occur by slower traditional means, the settlement of yen transferring from the market maker to the japanese bank, instead of two. Since XRP is a digital asset and is extremely fast, my payment to the market maker is pretty much settled in real time. Settlement time is expedited by using XRP for one leg of the transaction "journey". Is this the right way to think about it?
  9. I read somewhere that IOUs denominated in the same currency, say USD, but issued by different gateways such as Bitstamp or Gatehub might not be worth the same. So a $400 IOU from Gatehub might not be equal to a $400 IOU from Bitstamp. I'm assuming those differences in value are determined by the market based on trustworthiness of the gateways and supply and demand but I don't really understand where that market is made. Like how do the mechanics of the price discovery between IOUs work? Is there a bid-ask process for different IOUs when money is sent through the XRP ledger with rippling?
  10. My understanding is that the goal for XRP is to become a reserve currency similar to how USD is nowadays. I also understand that the strategy of Ripple is to first target smaller or less transacted currency corridors for example, Guatemalan quetzal to South African Rand. What are the advantages to using xrp in those cases as opposed to just using the US dollar?
  11. Do they collect a fee for doing so and if so, how is the fee set?
  12. Are market makers able to advertise their prices/services to attract users to extend trust lines to them? Basically how do new market makers get business if no one has extended trust lines to them yet? Does the pathfinding algorithm take into account paths that contain new market makers with little to no trust lines extended to them yet?
  13. Does anyone have statistics on the number of connectors/market makers or know where I can find this information? Would also be interested in seeing the biggest ones in terms of volume. I recently read up about the interledger protocol and it seems like connectors play a very significant role in the system, so I'm curious to see how big the field of connectors is.
  14. Or both? Say a large bank like Barclays in Europe sends money to Citi in the US. Would these banks use gateways in their respective countries, such as Gatehub or Bitstamp, to do this transaction? Or will they build their own gateways to use themselves and offer to customers? I can see smaller banks maybe using gateways, but curious about larger institutions.
  15. So there should be 6 pairs correct? The pdf for some reason says 8, that's why I was confused. Also for the top image, should it not be 30? 6 permute 2?
  • Create New...