Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    bones reacted to Cryptwerk in Ripple (XRP) Merchants Directory   
    the biggest list of merchants accepting XRP is made by Cryptwerk.com already
    600+ companies
    and check out XRP mass adoption map 

  2. Thanks
    bones reacted to jbjnr in ODL Nations   
    In general I'd say the answer is 'some'. The ODL tracker on https://utility-scan.com/#/dashboard looks at payments on the xrp ledger and compares them to trades on exchanges using the same amount. I think I read on this forum quite recently that they don't include it until they see 15 transaction that match the pattern. When those transactions are more than 24 hours old, they become part of the history, but don't affect new tests or numbers. However, there may be individuals who are doing ODL like activity - or random buy/sell pairs that appear to be matching that will appear as ODL activity on utilityscan.com - my own suspicion is that the numbers seen the other day including JPY, KRW etc were probably not ODL activity, but probably random trades that just happened to match the pattern.
    My own ODL tracker uses a different approach. I scan payments on ledger and do a very basic statistical check to see if the 'corridor' looks like ODL payments. By this, I mean are there regular payments from one account to another, using the same destination tag - are both accounts known as exchange accounts. Do the payments have sensible transaction sizes, do they fit a certain weekday/weekend pattern. When I find a corridor that 'looks' ODL-like, I then apply a filter to remove spurious corridors. for example, I see a great many ODL-like corridors that are probably arbitrage-bots between exchanges, casinos and other wallets that are 'unknown' - these I remove and what's left are then filtered down to 'candidates' and from there I keep only the ones that ripple have announced as trading partners, (bitso, bitstamp, coins.ph etc). When I plot the amounts on those corridors, I get numbers that match the ones shown on utility-scan.com - except for the JPY/KRW stuff - because I do not consider a corridor open until the trading pattern has stayed active for at least two weeks (I can increase or decrease that window).
    If a corridor is active during a period of time, and then goes inactive. I drop it from my list. This means that if I plot historical charts going back in time, traffic on these 'corridors' does not appear. In general, the amounts on these corridors is quite small by today's standards.
    If you look for example at this plot of weekly totals

    you will see activity USD/PHP and USD/MXN at low levels during the early part of last year - this was almost certainly testing of systems before they went properly 'live' later in the year. However, we have no proof of that and it might have just been normal traffic. My analysis relies on the assumption that if you were ripple/moneygram/other, it is unikely that you would mix ODL traffic with other money flows - when creating a new wallet is so easy and having different account tags on the exchange can be arranged. From an accounting point of view, it makes things much more straightforward to use certain wallets for certain operations and then summing/plotting/accounting becomes simpler.
    I should upgrade my scripts to keep 'old' corridors so that if ones come online, but then go dark again, then the summed traffic on those corridors is included. However, I am mostly interested in the main corridors and if old ones did exist and go dark, I would only care if they were big ones with a lot of traffic like the ones we see in the plot above.
    When I started tracking this back in 2018, I was having a hard time identifying 'corridors' because volumes were small, but now the signal stands out very clearly. And I ran my number (as mentioned in another thread the other day) against the numbers in the ripple q4 report and they %changes between quarters and other details (I forget what now) do match very closely what I see, so I am confident that my plots are basically correct. If I include or miss a handful of transactions, I'm not bothered - I'm interested in the overall trend and the main total.
    (I also see accounts that appear to be involved in rebalancing these corridors, but I am not including them in these plots).
    EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention is that the very early USD/PHP traffic last year was comparably speaking larger than the actual traffic taking place now. so it was probably setting up accounts as lots of large transfers that were 'too big' took place, however when real traffic started flowing, I kept the 'corridor' in my list. So, yes - there is almost certainly some spurious data.
  3. Thanks
    bones reacted to Dsimmo in Bitstamp XRP/USD volume now higher than BTC/USD   
    Extremely interesting development right here. This may not hold in the near future, but the trend is our friend, and I expect the gap to widen as we go further out into the future

  4. Like
    bones reacted to WrathofKahneman in Validators Great Debate - Tiff vs Galgitron   
    I imagine Ripple will always run their own validators to help keep the network robust.  While the cost of running a validator is more than most hobbyists can afford, they don't seem very high for a large corporation to run.  That this hasn't happened much so far seems to be part of the tension in their twitter exchanges.  
    This, however is good news; the first non-Ripple amendment has been voted on and added.  
  5. Like
    bones reacted to xerxesramesepolybius in IPO Trading Opportunities   
    Apologies HODLers this is a trading  topic.
    What trading opportunities particularly arbitrage plays do you think there would be between listed Ripple shares (post-IPO) and XRP?
  6. Like
    bones reacted to LeonidasH in Azimo Uses On-Demand Liquidity for Faster International Payments Into The Philippines   
  7. Like
    bones reacted to panmores in Fortune: Ripple claims a big win in the elusive quest to use cryptocurrency in banking   
    Nice read.
  8. Like
    bones reacted to ed1 in Zakinov v Ripple: Motion to dismiss granted and denied in part. Unregistered security allegations remain.   
    I think the result is not too bad for Ripple. The securities case is not dismissed but even in case the plaintiff can eventually win the case and claim a liability, the amount that the plaintiff can claim is severely restricted which would suggest a strong incentive to settle as far as the plaintiff is concerned.
    From the document:
    "Significantly, as plaintiff pointed out at oral arguments its 129,000 XRP unit purchase during 2018 Q1, when compared to defendants sale of 0.095 percent of the XRP traded on the market that quarter, supports the inference that plaintiff purchased approximately 122 XRP units from defendant (or approximately 19 XRP units, discounting for plaintiff’s two week trading period and reasonably assuming uniform distribution of sale by defendant during that period).
    This conclusion is further supported by the more glaring (but largely unaddressed) issue presented by this claim—namely, to what extent may defendants be considered in privity with an exchange purchaser when a subsequent purchase qualifies as part of an issuer transaction under § 25011. In any event, at this stage in the litigation, where the court may draw reasonable inferences and the relationship between defendants, subsequent purchasers,and the exchange isunclear, the court concludes that plaintiff has adequately alleged privity in support of his § 25503 claim, though he may ultimately be unable to prove it."
    "As a preliminary matter, plaintiff suggests that Rule 9(b) does not necessarily apply to his claims for violation of § 25401because they might sound in negligence (as opposed to fraud). Dkt. 74 at 27. Plaintiff fails to develop that potential distinction. In any event, because Rule 9(b) applies to negligent misrepresentation claims,9plaintiff’s underdeveloped suggestion to the contrary is misplaced.As a result, the court applies Rule 9(b) to plaintiff’s § 25501 and § 25504.1 claims for violation of § 25401. Here, plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards with respect to defendants’ allegedly fraudulent misstatements.
    "“Similarly, on or about December 21, 2017, Ripple tweeted in Japanese that XRP was now available on over 50 exchanges. That tweet linked to an article on Ripple’s website which described XRP as ‘the fastest and most scalable [digital] asset on the market.’It continued, ‘[t]he market is taking notice of XRP’s speed, reliability and scalability —which has strengthened the demand for XRP and whereit’s listed. In fact, we’re proud to announce that XRP has gone from being listed on six exchanges earlier this year to more than 50 worldwide.’The article also linked to a number of exchanges where XRP could be purchased, and stated that ‘XRP’s long-term value is determined by its utility—including its ability to help financial institutions source liquidity for payments into and out of emerging markets.’” Id.¶ 45. Here, plaintiff fails to explain how or why the above statement is false. As a result, the misstatement alleged above fails Rule 9(b)."
    "Various statements (mostly tweets) by defendants on specified dates concerning public interest in XRP (Compl. ¶ 63), advantages over Bitcoin (id.¶ 64), the growth and potential value of XRP (id.¶¶ 65-66), the future use of XRP by American Express, the Japan Bank Consortium, as well as other “banks and payment providers” (id.¶¶ 67, 68, 73), how XRP is more than “bank software”(id.¶ 74), a partnership with MoneyGram (id.¶¶ 102-103), defendants’ intent to develop the infrastructure necessary for banks to directly use XRP (id.¶ 102), and how XRP’s value depends upon the XRP Ledger’s use for cross-border payments as well as its adoption by enterprises (id.¶ 149).Again, plaintiff fails to explain how or whyany of the misstatements alleged in the above paragraphs are false. In their motion, defendants challenged the sufficiency of variousof these alleged misstatements. Dkt. 70 at 31. Plaintiff failed to respond to such challenges. Dkt. 74 at 27-28. As a result, the misstatements alleged at paragraphs 63-68, 70, 73-74, 102-03, and 149 all fail Rule 9(b)"
  9. Like
    bones reacted to LeonidasH in Zakinov v Ripple: Motion to dismiss granted and denied in part. Unregistered security allegations remain.   
  10. Thanks
    bones got a reaction from RippleGambler in Building an XRP trading bot - part 1   
    @RippleGambler You may want to have a look at what CryptoCowboy is doing https://github.com/Brietoe/CryptoCowboy
  11. Thanks
    bones reacted to Lumpy in The Jed Attack   
    (1/2) - 22 February 2020
    Although never confirmed by Jed McCaleb, the "tacostand" XRP wallet (rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv) is well-known to belong to him.
    A quick look at the wallet and its transactions (https://bithomp.com/explorer/rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv) and you will quickly notice that Mr McCaleb manages his funds following a very strict routine. Every morning at 08:02 UTC, 1.7M XRP are sent to another wallet. 

    The so-called wallet, activated by Jed, is then "in charge" of selling the XRP. A rigorous routine is also in place. Wait 09:00 UTC and you will see on the ledger the first "create offer". Offer that is usually selling 1M XRP for USD Bitstamp (IOU).

    Keep an eye on the XRP:USD.Bitstamp orderbook and you will see that the order is algorithmically managed. The price (exchange rate) of the limit order is, if needed, constantly adjusted. As an example, last Thursday (2020-02-20), the limit order was canceled and re placed 13 times.
    Jed aims to sell the XRP. The more the offer is at the edge of / at a competitive price on the orderbook, the more chance it has to be filled. 
    However, this Saturday morning, 22 February 2020, Jed's automated bot sold 1.7M XRP for ... $188,456 USD, meaning that it sold at an approximate XRP:USD price of ... 0.11 USD. The price this Saturday morning being around 0.271 USD.

    The candle below highlights the magnitude of the slippage.

    Details of the transactions:
    A trade has two participants, a buyer and a seller. Selling at a discount of 0.59% means that an individual (or group of individuals) made approx 270,000 USD of profit this morning. Luck or Jed's bot generosity is not, as you guess, the explanation of the dramatic event.
    The attacker (https://bithomp.com/explorer/raBmhBNmYFGe5hJ5Gez2MbpNspewctCAGv) has been preparing his/her/their coup de grâce. Although only successul today, the attacker has been groping for the flaw. Transaction activities of the wallet indicate that the wallet has been active on the XRP:USD.Bitstamp trading pair for at least two months.
    The wallet sold this morning around 1M XRP, cleaning all the liquidity / depth of the bids of the orderbook, then placed the first killing order (1) that Jed's bot decide to take, then the second killing order (2). Jed's bot also hit the bid for the latter.
    (1): https://bithomp.com/explorer/FEDC30F932389FC34D126172E26ACD10D79CAD78ACEA360B44B82ABA25868087
    (2): https://bithomp.com/explorer/0E3372A2F43154B02100CEF29C941FBC85084EF2BDCA65FA7DCD4ACA709F214E
    The attacker does not act alone. Sub-wallets 1 (https://bithomp.com/explorer/rHjzw8L2ZBNhLfWw3yv8AY1hf1QYnRMriR) and 2 (https://bithomp.com/explorer/r9ujfsgebDGPEoQP7WFYcVrhEKQZPKVGd7), activated by the one mentionned above, looked like to have specific roles. Mostly create counter orders, allowing front running kind of strategy. 
    To be continued...
    Many interesting unanswered questions:
    - What was the specific technical flaw the attacker took advantage of?
    - What is the profitability of the attack? (taking into account potential front running costs - previous tests / iterations before finding the flaw)
    - Will the attack repeat itself tomorrow? / Had Jed noticed the event?
    (2/2) - 25 February 2020
    Yes. As you can see below, the attack was repeated every day since the first successful attempt.

    More active market participants during the week than the weekend has probably a positive impact (less slippage) on Jed's bot loss, although today's data indicate that the attacker had a +10% discount on the XRP bought.
    When yesterday, on Monday February 24th, many bids populated the orderbook, therefore reducing the potential slippage and the arbitrage gain, the attacker does not seem to be discouraged. The malicious wallet even sent few payments with some interesting memo (here below) to push for more cooperation...

    Cooperation that was indeed tried, successfully or not, in the past. Look at the memo below regarding a payment sent early January. 

    A payment got some echo (payback, as a sign of approval for cooperation?) on at least one receiver. Please note that the client description below recalls some other events (https://medium.com/@john.cantell/hi-renier-8f887aee027b). 

    John Nash would have been proud. Even in a decentralised exchange the concept of game theory can stand. Memo can support text messages, allowing market participants to communicate with each other and therefore, look at decision not in isolation but as being part of different interactions.
    As regards Jed's bot flaw, it seems that the algorithm takes decisions based on:
    the distance to the best ask: replacing the order to make sure that it is at the edge of the ask side the bid ask spread the volume depth of the bids: Jed's bot hits the attacker bids (in all examples), meaning that Jed's bot decides to hit the bid if the slippage is not too important and if a tight spread (mentionned above) is true Note that the above are assumptions and educated guesses. Digging into the transactions is probably the best way to know more about it.
    I am quite surprised that (my assumption) there is no outside / off ledger element Jed's bot relies on. For instance, the XRP:USD spot price of another (liquid) market, making sure that the decision to place an order on the ledger at x price is not irrational compare to the latter. The best for that being probably the BitMex XRP:USD spot index (https://www.bitmex.com/app/index/.BXRP). 
  12. Like
    bones reacted to peanut56 in Moneygram shuns XRP in latest settlement product   
    I didn't see anywhere that MoneyGram shunned Ripple or ODL. If I remember correctly Visa and Moneygram have been working on Sendfriend for quit some time. Along with that was is not earth port, a ripple partner, that was acquired by Visa. I'm not saying that there isn't behind the scenes competition, but if it takes ODL years to allow MG to save money due to regulation and liquidity and Visa can save them money now, why wouldn't MG keep their options open. It would be interesting to here a remark from Ripple, Moneygram, or Visa in regards to future plans, but I doubt that will happen. This just smells a little like all other crypto articles, biased, poorly researched, and opinionated due to attention grabbing motivations.
  13. Thanks
    bones reacted to Julian_Williams in Moneygram shuns XRP in latest settlement product   
    There are now three corridors, all less than 1 year old and they are all expanding very rapidly - nothing "pitiful" to report.  Can you name me another product that is expanding that fast? ODL doubling every 30 days - that is very, very, very, very fast.  New corridors expected to be alive within Q1 and more in Q2.

  14. Thanks
  15. Like
    bones reacted to Mitty in Moneygram shuns XRP in latest settlement product   
    This article is rehashing the cointelegraph article. If anyone bothered to read that they would of come across
    "Lastly, she said that MoneyGram is looking at multiple use cases to maximize the use of Ripple’s tools and is integrating with the latest version of Ripple’s service suite to offer cash-out service to all network members."
    How does the "MoneyGram FastSend" settle? that would be  nice to know. Is it just leveraging the visa networks nostro/vostro accounts? is Visa taking a hit to its profit margins to keep relevant?
  16. Like
    bones reacted to JBW in Binance.US Calls XRP 'Future of Banking Remittance Services', Uses Hashtag '#XRPTheStandard'   
    I like this.
  17. Like
    bones reacted to Live_Market_Index in XRP Now Available to 2 Million New Users Via This Ripple Partnership   
    XRP Now Available to 2 Million New Users Via This Ripple Partnership
    "XRP is the newest addition to BRD wallet, formerly Bread wallet. BRD wallet is extremely popular among crypto users, and could potentially be a huge partnership for the asset."
  18. Thanks
    bones reacted to LeonidasH in Ripple’s BitPay partnership pays dividends: XRP now available to 100,000 retailers   
  19. Like
    bones reacted to coinfieldmatt in Sologenic Launches Decentralized SOLO & XRP Wallet App   
    Hi Everybody!
    Sologenic's new SOLO Wallet app is now available to download from the App Store and on Google Play. It's the first decentralized wallet app for SOLO, XRP, and Tokenized Assets to support the Sologenic ecosystem. 
    Sologenic is built on the XRP ledger allowing investing and trading of on-demand tokenized assets, including stocks and ETFs. 
    You can read the press release here:
    there is more info about Sologenic and their products and projects on their website:  https://www.sologenic.com/#products 
  20. Like
    bones reacted to ixarepe in Does Novogratz have a point?   
    Longtime XRP investor here and bullish on XRP. Nevertheless I think Novogratz raises a fair point. 
    "Ripple the company owns 60 billion of the coins, of the XRP,” Novogratz began. “That’s a lot of it.”
    “When I’m buying a stock, if I know [someone’s] selling $10 billion-worth of it at some price, it makes me less excited to buy the stock,”
    “It did underperform immensely last year,” he told the audience. “I think it will underperform immensely again this year and it’s just because of the supply.”
    This is not about comparing XRP to shares (because they are not). But about the sheer amount of XRP Ripple is holding. 
    I was part of the 'sword of damocles' discussions before the Escrow thing and although the Escrow construction mitigates part of the issue, for all practical purposes the hypothetical ability to 'dump' 1 billion XRP on the market each month is still looming above the market. 
    I know the argument about how this is not in Ripples interest but would rather see an automatic release mechanism tied to an x% of growth. 
    Growth is decreasing below the set percentage then release of XRP is decreasing (maybe even buying up XRP). And vice versa. 
    Curious to hear what you think. 
  21. Like
    bones reacted to JA8 in Does Novogratz have a point?   
    Yes, Novogratz is no fool - he has a point. Whoever designed XRP probably isn't an economics genius (imo). I am not an economics genius either, but I do know a fair bit.  I'm familiar with the arguments on both sides, but personally think that Ripple holds a *ridiculous* amount of XRP which I think will be off-putting to some of its more serious potential partnerships. That said, people are greedy and speculation can still drive XRP higher than its previous ATH, I think.

    @DutchBeetle Whilst it can be argued that the sold BTC capital "flows out of BTC", this is what incentivises miners to process transactions and secure the network. It further incentivises competition between miners and their upstream suppliers leading to a lean and robust network infrastructure. It's a neatly capitalist setup. This is not a bad thing.
  22. Like
  23. Like
    bones reacted to mandelbaum in Celsius Network pays 4.27 % interest on XRP from feb 1   
    Alex Mashinsky is a great entrepreneur, he pretty much created the VoIP protocol causing massive disruption in the worlds telecom companies. All phone calls today use the Voice over IP protocol.
    He claims he will do the same to international banking, giving most of the gains back to the users instead of the banks keeping most of the profits from customers money placed in the bank. They call it Decantralized Finance, or DeFi.
    Will it work? Who knows. Celsius could be the killer app that turns the tide for crypto. Or it could disappear.
  24. Thanks
    bones reacted to jargoman in Building an XRP trading bot - part 1   
    I looked over the coil blog. I noticed you like to code in java. When I came the xrp ecosystem java was my language of choice. Now my language of choice is c#. java code is indistinguishable from c# code. Very small learning curve switching between java and c#

    I created a number of software solutions for the xrp ecosystem and one of them was designed from the beginning to be a build your own bot / wallet. I've considered switching to iron python to allow support for tezos smart contracts through python but that's only an idea at this point. 

    Using this library I created makes things way easier. 

    // Connect to ripple network var connectSettings = new ConnectionSettings (); connectSettings.ServerUrls = new [] { "s1.ripple.com"}; NetworkInterface networkInterface = new NetworkInterface (connectSettings); var connectTask = networkInterface.ConnectTask (); connectTask.Wait (); // Construct a transaction RippleOfferTransaction offer = new RippleOfferTransaction (); RippleCurrency takerGets = new RippleCurrency (1000000); // xrp RippleCurrency takerPays = new RippleCurrency (0.0001m, "rE9S_ripple_issuer_account", "BTC"); offer.TakerGets = takerGets; offer.TakerPays = takerPays; offer.Sequence = 1; offer.LastLedgerSequence = 1234568890; offer.fee = new RippleCurrency (1000); // Construct a secret string secret = "sABDS_secret_ripple_key"; RippleSeedAddress rippleSeed = new RippleSeedAddress (secret); // Sign, submit and print offer.Sign (rippleSeed); var response = offer.Submit (networkInterface, new CancellationToken()); System.Console.WriteLine(response.result.engine_result_message); If you're interested I'll help you get started. 

    I do have a bot with a gui interface. It's a build your own market making bot. I recommend you at least learn the market making strategy before testing out your own bot that could potentially lose money. I don't count my crypto for emotional reasons but I'd say the bot has made a million or two in revenue mostly due to the meteoric rise of XRP in 2017. Money I lost was due to the entire market dropping over 90% but I have more crypto than I started with and cashed out 10 times my original investment, so I feel like I'm up because my portfolio is outperforming blockchain. I do trade on the side to hedge risks. 
  25. Like
    bones reacted to jargoman in Testing The Waters for a New Gateway   
    Exchanges tend to do well. The majority of them are NOT control your own keys and they get hacked. Or they don't have the licensing. The failed gateways had no ui and no clear instructions how to trade on the XRPL

    I prefer the xrpl to any other exchange. It's fast, secure and no third party risk on xrp. Plus ripple partnerships every other day ensure that someone will be using this protocol in the future. There are zero canadian dollar issuers on the ledger. The market is wide open. 

    Just as it would mean the flip of a switch for banks to use xrp. It would be a flip of a switch for xrapid to pull extra liquidity from the ledger. Instead though is seems for now coil is utilizing xrapid from the ledger through gatehub. Furthermore anyone can use the public software to source liquidity from the xrpl using their own app. Widespread adoption would mean that decentralized payments would be the norm. Interfacing with traditional systems.

    The introduction of 30,000 equity tokens to the XRPL is a sign that vast liquidity may be coming to the xrpl. That gives 30,000 pairs that can be traded again the CAD token. 

    There is the possible additional revenue streams from merchants and payment requests. Maybe even a test bed store which can sell tshirts and crypto gear. 
  • Create New...