Jump to content

Montoya

Member
  • Content Count

    428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Montoya

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Was a time on here that people used to discuss technology, system architecture, monetary theory, trade theory. etc. Now we argue over adoption rumors and split grammatical hairs over a tweet.
  2. The problem with this approach is the same faced by those seeking to curb fake news everywhere: Who gets to decide what is news and what is junk/lies. This usually ends up simply being a small group imposing their biases on the rest. Not saying this is always necessarily wrong, but any group, even experts, will have biases that lead to blind spots. I think of crypto itself here. Not long ago, one might've found the same sentiment about any articles dealing with crypto or blockchain from the mainstream financial press. Just food for thought. I personally favor people putting up anything they wish. If the articles are garbage they are usually exposed as such by the fine community here quite rapidly. But at least they can be discussed on the (very) off chance there is a grain of wisdom tucked away inside.
  3. Anyone else remember when they switched to names for the wallets on the Ripple Exchange? Then everyone went rushing to buy up all the possible well -known corporate names like Apple, Microsoft, etc? Funny looking back at it now.
  4. I love bitcoin in the same way I love a 1932 Ford. It is a beautiful piece of engineering and a victory of creativity, but I don't want to drive one to the office every day, and it's not much good for getting groceries.
  5. I tend to think it is mostly priced in. People know Tether is unbacked, and they don't seem to really care. The fact that we haven't seen a run on it already, I feel, is evidence that people find the need for its utility great enough to bear the risk of being the last ones standing when the music stops.
  6. Agree completely. For whatever system wins out, remittances will just be the hors d'oeuvre. The main course will be trade. And blockchain, when done right, can offer huge efficiency gains in this area.
  7. What critics? Internet people? If the only goal is satisfying critics rather than a functional business purpose, is it really worth it? It seems the costs in efficiency would be enormous and the benefits meager, if they exist at all. Furthermore, Ripple is a privately held Corporation. They may have no more than twenty to thirty stock holders. And wouldn't the critics simply move their critiques to them? Bottom line, I get that there are critics , but this line of criticism is idiotic. You can't go around altering your business model for every crackpot critic who comes along. Some companies do admittedly, so I see your point. I think of the food industry playing to the organic crowd. Food scientists and farmers know it is stupid but they see the marketing value in it. The difference is, their associated business model is not seriously hamstrung by playing to these critics. I believe Ripples would be.
  8. People have no issue using oil, even though doing so has made at least one dictator-in-waiting, who owns a huge portion of the world's reserves, and has an affinity for hacksaws, very, very rich.
  9. Technically, by definition the shareholders already own all the XRP controlled by Ripple. I'm guessing you mean control of the XRP?
  10. I'm just desperate to keep my mind of the schlacking I took in the stock market again today.
  11. I initially thought this as well. But what would occur in such a system during a run on the bank? The current system dealt with it by simply saying "the dollar isn't backed. If you want dollars we can print all you want." If it is backed by a redeemable asset, this restricts the bank's ability to solve the liquidity problem during a run by printing more IOUs. After all, why would you accept a rapidly inflating IOU when you could have the underlying asset? Of course they could simply say the IOUs are never redeemable, but then why would anyone accept them in the first place? And how would it be preferable to the current system? The way I figure, the only solution would be those entities that issue IOUs back them 100%. OP seems to be right, at least as far as I can tell, deflationary currency does not seem to mesh with fractional reserve banking. Someone please convince me otherwise.
  12. I think I am (sadly) in agreement with your assessment that there would be a liquidity trap using a deflationary currency to backstop the current fractional reserve financial system. But the idea of using a deflationary currency in a non-fractional reserve system still intrigues me, and so far it seems that in such an environment a liquidity trap may not occur. I know it is mostly academic and the thought of a functioning system without fractional reserve banking seems far fetched at this point, but let's hash it out anyway. I honestly don't know what it could look like either. Wouldn't a run be fairly harmless if banks are not involved in fractional reserve credit creation? And wouldn't economic expansion simply be dealt with by falling prices across the board depending on resource scarcity and growth of production efficiency? If we assume a massively divisible currency that is essentially omnipresent (such as some sort of crypto) would liquidity be a problem? Is there any reason such a system would not work in theory using crypto? As can be seen from several periods in history, deflation can coexist with economic expansion. Couldn't such a system actually provide more accurate information to consumers on the real costs of production and resource scarcity, being that it is able to convey the real interest rate in the economy to the investor? Isn't capital a scarce good like any other that cannot have a fixed price without creating distortions? Isn't the Fed rate simply price controls on capital? Wouldn't such a system drive efficiency in the use of this scarce resource? Wouldn't better information on the real value of capital not drive more efficient production? Once again, just a thought experiment here. I can't find any fault in your logic concerning the liquidity problems faced by XRP in the current environment unfortunately. **Not sure what denotes a Neo-Keynsian. My economic education is fairly rudimentary at this point. That being said, I have found myself in agreement mostly with the Austrian school but I dither on the topic of monetary policy and sometimes feel swayed by Milton Friedman's arguments in that area.
×
×
  • Create New...