Mercury

Wanted to add one more thought. If this becomes successful I fully expect there to be copy-cats, either some sort of automated exchange built on ether or some sort of purpose built crypto clearing house. However, after the initial rush to cash in I think we will see more focus on core uses of each individual coin. Rather than trying to do everything and anything on one particular blockchain we will have ease of transfer depending on use case and best suitability. Instead of having a lot of walled gardens trying to add more and more content to seem 'open' we can have a truly open ecosystem. That also means each coin will have to really define and defend what it is they do, and do it well or be left for a better focused project.

We need to rewrite the lyrics to this song for them

There was a chrome browser extension that showed ticker price for XRP and alarms... I wonder what happened to it

does @TplusZero already have a thread for this? If so I can merge

The price always raises three days after a crash. Unless it's a Sunday. Then its a day of restful flat trading. Common- its just basic knowledge

We can add the badge to your profile pic

Hardly. Think of it more of a frictionless bridge between all assets... and only XRPLedger has a built in exchange... We might just see it becoming the 'clearing house' of the connected blockchains...

This thread went a little off the rails from OP to a social study. Locking

I would say the consensus is this is a FUD attempt. Locking

Yes and no. It may be as much as the requirements of the job don't fit the tech. There was one set of standards and scores for ALL applicants, traditional and new. There was only a handful of crypto tokens presented and the Task Force had stated they already had to revisit some positions in light of these new offerings. Ripple may be offering a means to the end goal that is outside the parameters of the proposal. This would affect the score and I can't blame the task force. Giving lower points to Piccaso because he didn't paint like Rubens dosen't make Piccaso less of a painter, just different. This is one of the reasons why I am glad they are putting forward those that 'passed' and letting the market choose the rest, considerations greater or different than the one the Task Force was asked to solve may decide the eventual winner.

Sorry @Hodor for changing the OP

When I have time I will compare to the ACH groups proposal. As a 'old school' applicant they should speak the language and shouldn't have issues with standards etc. Would be interesting to see how they stacked up. If really ambitious I might go ahead and make a basic marking system (replacing Very Effective to Not Effective with 1-5) so we can see 'totals' for all proposals.

What is interesting following the first reports release is that Ripple was allowed to address the report in general. They chose to address 'focus on improving cross-boarder payments' (p. 123), 'additional detail on the solution's legal and governance structure' (p. 126) and 'addressing comments regarding the reliance on providers for fraud monitoring'. (p. 130) Ripple's legal and governance structure feedback mentions the formation of the Ripple Steering group and its efforts/ effects, end user data protection, and how handling risk have been further addressed. Some parts of the comments made on the report were in regards to aspects Ripple was working on- such as compliance to standards (Ripple is working with W3 on new ones), other comments seemed based on a incomplete understanding of Ripple technology, such as rules to enforce approval through settlement (Ripple settles in seconds 24/7/365. Even if a payment fails the payee will know in seconds). I suppose this should have been an 'assumption' made by Ripple that certain standards would be adopted, etc. It is tough to be measured against current standards when they do not apply. Ripple's reply to its reliance on fraud monitoring on providers is that in the current system cross-border payments rely entirely on FI to report. There is no central monitoring system currently. Ripple follows this practice without placing additional burdens on providers. One does get that some comments were comparing the current system to Ripple's and wondering why it doesn't do xyz and its obvious Ripple skips straight to z. In other comments it seems some expect Ripple to provide tools outside the scope of the Faster Payments System- monitoring of international cross-boarder payments for example is not done now or monitored on system (seems some are confusing the duties and obligations of FI with the plumping and expecting a hybrid of sorts). Is Ripple misunderstood or not appreciated by non tech savvy bankers leading to a un fair mark? Tough to say, although reading between the lines one does get a certain sense of... frustration from Ripple.

Last FYI- this is the type of topic, the analytic overview of the report that I am open to debating/ round table discussing