Jump to content

spiras

Member
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    spiras got a reaction from DirectorCoulson in Bearableguy123 Thread   
    The site keeps going down, so here is the full story.
    Bitcoin Reserves and the New USD Crypto
    JC Collins
    For years now the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), International Monetary Fund (IMF), G20, BRICS, and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) have all been working together on developing the best alternative to the role of the USD as the primary reserve asset used in the global monetary system.  The challenge has been to find a supra-sovereign asset, which is an asset not owned or anchored to the domestic economy of any one nation, with enough global liquidity to function as the base, or bridge asset, for the full global framework.
    The USD, and the British pound before, has been a drag on the international system almost since its rise to full prominence in 1944.  The use of a domestic currency as the bridge asset in a global system ensures that the demand placed on that currency will expand the money supply far beyond what the domestic economy can sustain.  This is what happened with the USD and the symptoms are around us everywhere.
    America went from having the world’s largest trade surplus in 1944, to now having the world’s largest trade deficit.  Global imbalances based on USD accumulation in the foreign exchange reserve accounts of central banks, and inconsistent exchange rate arrangements between the USD and the domestic currencies of other nations, are the fundamental challenges which need to be addressed.
    The nations and institutions, who have been working on correcting these imbalances, which includes America, were considering an expanded use of the Special Drawing Right (SDR) of the IMF.  The SDR was created in 1969, and was meant to be a basket of predetermined domestic currencies, like the dollar and pound, which could be used to provide liquidity during global crisis.  The crisis of course would be caused by the imbalances created by the international use of the domestic USD.
    Following the SDR was the development of OPEC and the petrodollar arrangement between Saudi Arabia and America to ensure all global energy sales were transacted in USD.  The SWIFT system of cross-border payments was implemented to facilitate the expanding use of the USD.
    These are all important monetary facts to understand, because what is happening in the world now around crypto assets and cross-border payment improvements, are a direct response to the inefficiencies and imbalances which have contributed to a one sided distribution of wealth in the world.
    It’s just as hard for some to wrap their heads around the world which is quickly emerging on a day-by-day basis, as it is to understand the complex nature and history of the monetary system which we are currently living under.  This is why I spend so much time finding new ways to write and present the same information.  Everyone has a different way of understanding the information.
    For the last 5 years I have been writing about the SDR and the need for nations and global institutions to come together and engineer an alternative to the USD.  The SDR, being the best test case scenario at the time, was promoted by the IMF, BIS, and China as the dollar alternative.  But the SDR needed almost a complete overhaul to make it liquid enough to meet global demands.
    We are now experiencing a crypto renaissance as blockchain potential is being fully realized around the world.  Central banks and commercial banks are openly talking about developing their own ledgers and crypto assets.  Think about that for a second.  It means that there will soon be a crypto version of the USD on its own Federal Reserve ledger.
    That’s the thing many people also don’t understand about ledgers.  Ledgers are the new banks.
    As my fingers move across the keyboard there are huge plans unfolding in boardrooms around the world. These plans are incorporating the fundamental ingredients required for the alchemical transformation of the international monetary system.
    Since at least the 1600’s (perhaps as far back as the time of the Phoenician Empire) something I call the Crown Beast has been moving wealth around the world from empire to empire.  With the establishment of the first central bank in Amsterdam, this power has utilized the concept of reserve currencies to build the pathways and corridors for wealth and value to move from location to location.
    The Dutch held the reserve currency during the time there was a Dutch Empire. The Spanish held the reserve currency during the time there was a Spanish Empire. The French held the reserve currency during the time there was a French Empire.  The British held the reserve currency during the time there was a British Empire.
    America has held the reserve currency during the period which has been undeniably defined as American hegemonic and unilateral world dominance.
    At the end of each period the Crown Beast, like the alchemical ouroboros, devours its own tail. The thing to understand about the ouroboros is that the tail, which represents the past, the old, is now hidden inside of the new as it vanishes inside the serpent.  But it is the same as it always has been.  The lineage of empires and reserve currencies, and the wealth which transitioned with them, are the ouroboros.
    It’s worth pointing out that the ouroboros is not just represented as a serpent eating its own tail, but is also represented as a figure eight, or symbol of infinite. This figure eight is also being used to represent the artificial intelligence singularity.
    Based on the above understanding we can make the determination that the transformation of the USD into a crypto version would have the same allegorical meaning as the ouroboros.  The owners of ancient wealth who have been pulling the puppet strings of the business, banking, and academic establishments which have built up around each empire and fiat currency, will now manipulate the USD under a crypto version which will be on its own ledger.  The forthcoming USD ledger will have to interact with other ledgers, with ledgers being the new banks.
    But first…
    Another esoteric symbol which is worth considering is that of the phoenix, or rise of the Phoenician Empire from its ashes. Most readers will have a working understanding of the phoenix symbolism, but applying it to real-world events, or applications, is grossly overused.  So it is with caution that I reference the yearly cycle of Bitcoin as it crashes and burns, only to rise again to ever greater heights.
    Bitcoin is at the core of the blockchain and crypto world.  It was the first of its kind.  Some are suggesting that Bitcoin could be the new reserve currency which replaces the USD.  There are huge challenges with that, but maybe we are not looking at the full picture.
    The change which is just about upon us will be so radical that the previous concepts, such as reserve currency, and foreign exchange reserves, as well as capital flows, will be completely redefined, or will no longer be in use.   We just assume that there will be a new reserve currency.  But what if there is no need for a reserve currency?  What if there is no need for foreign exchange reserves?  What if capital flows no longer flow, but integrate?
    The case uses for Bitcoin under a whole new crypto monetary framework could breathe new life into the original blockchain asset.  Both Bitcoin and the USD will persevere for the time being, but neither will be capable of providing the function which a new global crypto monetary system will require.
    This is where the crypto asset XRP by Ripple comes into play.  XRP will be capable of providing cross-border payment services measured in seconds at only fractions of a cent.  What reserve currencies have been doing for centuries, XRP will do at thousands of times the efficiency.
    Considering that ledgers are the new banks, the interledger protocol of Ripple should create a lot of excitement as the one bridge function which connects all other ledgers and allows for value to move around the world.  As such, the interledger is the new version of the reserve currency in the same manner that ledgers are the new banks.
    The new global crypto monetary framework, or the castle, so to speak, and the wealth within it, will be managed and protected by the interledger system, with XRP serving as the bridge asset in a new exchange arrangement which will eliminate the imbalances and inefficiencies associated with past fiat reserve currencies.
    Those business, banking, and academic interests which have moved from empire to empire will no longer have control as the fully decentralized XRP interledger expands.  Not even Ripple will have influence or control over the interledger once more non-Ripple validators are added.  Each ledger which joins the interledger can have its own validator.  This would be the distribution of fairness within the architecture.
    Consider, if decentralized ledgers are the new banks, then by default of definition, the interledger would be the decentralized World Bank which makes it all possible. Except in this case, no one nation with a dominant reserve currency can control it through hegemonic business and banking practices.
    While a decentralized XRP guards the castle gate, the new crypto USD and Bitcoin, and those who attempt to control and manipulate both, will not be allowed to corrupt the new global crypto monetary system and cause an unfair, undeserved, and imbalanced movement of wealth and value to the places which convenience them the most.  The full system will be protected by the XRP interledger through blockchain sword and spear.
    It is inevitable that each nation’s central bank will develop their own ledgers and hold other cryptos in what are now called the foreign exchange reserve accounts.  China wants to exchange crypto RMB for crypto USD? It will do so through using XRP as the exchange asset.  The Federal Reserve wants to hold Bitcoin in its own foreign exchange reserve account?  It will have to exchange crypto USD for Bitcoin first by using XRP as the exchange asset.
    XRP will be the bridge asset which serves to connect all assets and ledgers through the interledger protocol.
    The unpopular truth which most do not see during this early time of adoption is the total dominance which XRP will attain in the future.  With payment apps and a whole new micropayment industry emerging, there will come a time when needing anything other than XRP will be forgotten.   Shush, don’t tell the Crown Beast!  - JC
  2. Thanks
    spiras reacted to Hodor in Visionaries vs. Protectionists   
    Blog URL:  https://coil.com/p/Hodor/Visionaries-vs-Protectionists/Dtw6Y_8Vw
    Who will you follow:The visionaries or the protectionists? Learn more, along with all the latest news impacting XRP, in today's blog!
    𝐑𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬: The SWELL Conference website is updated with more details; The fourteenth episode of the Ripple Drop is released; Shanna Leonard reveals details about Ripple's marketing efforts; and the Technology Policy Institute (TPI) covers regulatory challenges facing Ripple.
    𝐂𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬:  Stefan Thomas discusses the importance of the Web Monetization standard with Reinhard Cate; and I indicate six recommended Coil content creators to check out for subscribers.
    𝐗𝐑𝐏 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬: Nasdaq includes XRP in its default cryptomarket listing; Xago shares the results of their latest meetup in South Africa; and Colodax, CBANKX, Simex, and goFaast all add support for XRP on their respective platforms;
    I hope you enjoy the read: Please feel free to share my blog with a friend or share it on any other platform - and thanks for doing so!  
    My blog announcement links on other platforms:
    Twitter Reddit r/Ripple Reddit r/CryptoCurrency Reddit r/CryptoMarkets Reddit r/xrp Reddit r/RippleTalk Reddit r/alternativecoin Reddit r/CoilCommunity Bitcointalk - alt coin sub forum Bitcointalk - XRP speculation thread
  3. Like
    spiras reacted to ADingoAteMyXRP in Is this a leak?   
    It's saying FedNow is designed to be a competitor to TCH.
  4. Like
    spiras reacted to ADingoAteMyXRP in Is this a leak?   
    This comment is saying that building an RTGS system is extraordinarily complex, which is why the private sector on its own has only produced ONE entrant so far (The Clearing House).
    That's why FedNow is so important... by adding a federal RTGS system, they hope to provide competition and create new options for banks.
    This means FedNow is not using The Clearing House. They want to give banks another option. TCH has been really salty about Fednow on Twitter because, well... it's competition. I think several of the Faster Payments Taskforce vendors are involved in Fednow, and based on the Faster Payments council announcement in May, a major one of them is Ripple. I do not think XRP is involved, but the reason this is a big win for Ripple, is that faster US payments means faster xRapid settlement into and out of one of the largest cross-border corridors on the planet.
  5. Like
    spiras got a reaction from GiddyUp in Fednow’s joint account   
    Look at the technology providers.
    At the very least, Ripple is involved.

  6. Like
    spiras got a reaction from djdhrubs in Fednow’s joint account   
    Pat Thelen is VP of Strategic Accounts at Ripple.  His job is to work with CLIENT (customer) engagement and satisfaction to ensure smooth interface with their services.  If there is a  question or a problem, they call Pat.  Pat gets sh!t done.
    Pat is also one of only 3 at-large members.
    Seems like he's pretty important.
  7. Like
    spiras got a reaction from fiik in Fednow’s joint account   
    Pat Thelen is VP of Strategic Accounts at Ripple.  His job is to work with CLIENT (customer) engagement and satisfaction to ensure smooth interface with their services.  If there is a  question or a problem, they call Pat.  Pat gets sh!t done.
    Pat is also one of only 3 at-large members.
    Seems like he's pretty important.
  8. Like
    spiras got a reaction from OzAlphaWolf in Fednow’s joint account   
    Pat Thelen is VP of Strategic Accounts at Ripple.  His job is to work with CLIENT (customer) engagement and satisfaction to ensure smooth interface with their services.  If there is a  question or a problem, they call Pat.  Pat gets sh!t done.
    Pat is also one of only 3 at-large members.
    Seems like he's pretty important.
  9. Like
    spiras got a reaction from ADingoAteMyXRP in Fednow’s joint account   
    Pat Thelen is VP of Strategic Accounts at Ripple.  His job is to work with CLIENT (customer) engagement and satisfaction to ensure smooth interface with their services.  If there is a  question or a problem, they call Pat.  Pat gets sh!t done.
    Pat is also one of only 3 at-large members.
    Seems like he's pretty important.
  10. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from ADingoAteMyXRP in Fednow’s joint account   
    Look at the technology providers.
    At the very least, Ripple is involved.

  11. Like
    spiras got a reaction from XRPboi in Fednow’s joint account   
    Look at the technology providers.
    At the very least, Ripple is involved.

  12. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from wavicle in David Schwartz is not a fan of Hodling   
    Dave sold some of his XRP stash for over $10 MIL. 
    If I had 10 MIL dollars in XRP, I would sell right now and be done, regardless of what I think XRP is likely to do in the future.  That's life changing money.  Why risk it for a chance at more?  I don't need more, no matter how confident I am that XRP will go higher.  Because no matter how confident I am, I could be always be wrong.
    Now lets take it a step further.  What if I had 20 mil dollars of XRP?  Of course I would sell at least 10MIL.  Then maybe keep the other 10 MIL in XRP?  Best of both worlds.  I'm set, PLUS have investment for even more money.
    Let's go further.  What if I had 30 MIL dollars of XRP?  First, that would never happen, because I would have sold a bunch of it at 10 or 20 mil.. but lets just say I did.  I would sell.
    Now, Let's take David's example.  The guy had 16 MILLION XRP for a USD value of about 50 MILLION USD when he sold SOME of his XRP. (10 MIL USD worth.)
    Why are we talking about this, again?
    Remember, Dave sold XRP from ONE of his long standing XRP accounts.  The account had been established well enough in advance to be able to count as capital gains and a MUCH lower tax rate.  How do we know that he didn't BUY BACK the same amount he sold when the price dropped back to 30 cents?  HE likely WOULD NOT have placed it back into the same wallet and muddied what was newly acquired XRP with long holding XRP.. especially when he knew he was going to need to sell a little more to pay the tax man the following year (he sold another $1M USD worth of XRP on April 14th this year). 
    He likely would have put his newly purchased XRP into a different wallet that you all aren't tracking and being a new holding period of that money so that it, too, could have been easily identifiable as capital gains in the future.
    The point is, Dave is human.  He has a family.  He has grandkids.  He had many millions of dollars in XRP.  He sold some now, and is set for life no matter what else happens with XRP.  However, if XRP goes moon, he still has more XRP than probably anyone else in this forum.  So he's set.  He derisked, got many millions.  Is still stocked.
    One thing XRP can't buy you is TIME.  He might as well start enjoying his money, because he can't buy more time later in life to enjoy it then.  
    His comments on twitter are about the criticism he got for selling.  He's trying to explain it, but he shouldn't have to.  Him selling was not in any way related to his beliefs of what XRP might do in the future.  It was about derisking and getting millions now for his family. 
    People need to leave the guy alone. 
  13. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Johno in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  14. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Danny in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  15. Like
    spiras got a reaction from GiddyUp in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  16. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from Babelly in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  17. Like
    spiras got a reaction from T800 in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  18. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Tull in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  19. Like
    spiras got a reaction from invest2lose in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  20. Like
    spiras got a reaction from JTxrPP in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  21. Like
    spiras got a reaction from earth in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  22. Like
    spiras got a reaction from xrphilosophy in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  23. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from Roaring_Twenties in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  24. Like
    spiras reacted to Julian_Williams in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I am glad you started this post.  Your points are well made.  The more I think about this project the less elegant solution it looks. ( I look forward to the opinions of others as I do not have any expertise in how finance works)
    1. A stable coin that  is pegged to four currencies is no longer a stable coin, it is a "forced compromise coin" and its price will always be a fudge in which some people pay a price
    2. This is a sophisticated digital correspondence banking that needs funding and there is no bridging asset.  Will they try to compensate by creating a whole new layer of programming that fudge their way though the complex accounting and funding anomalies? 
    3. Perhaps someone can explain how the coins will be circulated from hot spots to cold spots.  With XRP this is done through using Market makers.  Obviously these coins are going to end up accumulating in China.  So how do they get back to countries running a deficit with China?    Is there some sort of market maker system?
    4.  SWIFT transfers 5 trillion a day.  Facebook have cash funds of 40 billion.  This is not a lot of equity.  Where are the trillions to fund this scheme going to come from?
    XRP is elegant.  It has been thought through and the anomalies are not there because the bridging asset is always priced in the exchange currency in real time.  MMs move it to where it is needed.  The equity grows by revaluing XRP as the system grows.  There is always enough equity.
    The more I look at Libra the more it looks like an idea that was put together on the back of an envelope by a group of greedy CEOs that want a piece of Riplenet's pie but don't have the resources and technical know how to build the infrastructure a bridging asset requires.  The truth is that the Internet of Value needs the ILP and a bridging asset.  Anything that tries to work outside those parameters is going to be isolated and not be able to integrate with the standards everyone else will be using. 
     
  25. Like
    spiras reacted to PunishmentOfLuxury in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    Good post.
    On a similar theme, this was first linked to by @jcdenton https://pastebin.com/N8kq5kHk
×
×
  • Create New...