Jump to content

The_Phoenixed_Banker

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

The_Phoenixed_Banker last won the day on October 26 2017

The_Phoenixed_Banker had the most liked content!

About The_Phoenixed_Banker

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks Paradox, My views have certainly not changed and I still believe Ripple will be very successful. If any of my personal speculations turn out to be true than I think all of us here will be very happy with our choice.
  2. Good Afternoon Everyone, I have to keep this short as I have been out and about for the past few days. I am not sure if this article has been discussed or not but I wanted to let you all know that I can verify the authenticity of it and confirm that the presentation did happen. Confirmation of the event and verification of the presentation is all I can offer at this time. Thanks. https://www.cryptorecorder.com/2018/05/30/bank-of-america-to-adopt-ripple-xrp/
  3. Good Morning, After seeing this communication and some of the replies here I thought I could potentially offer some insight. From a strategy and interoperability perspective, I agree with Ripple's overall approach. The communication is bit bold and certainly leaves room for various interpretations which unfortunately is always going to be negative given the space and for the fact that this is Ripple. In an old post I discussed the overall banking landscape and the challenges that are associated with implementing new technology in a bank. Looking at this communication and considering Ripple's past successes I can tell you that this move makes the most strategic sense. Nothing against David, but I do feel that this could of been communicated much better in order to not only ease XRP investors but to also provide an explanation as to why such a statement was made. There are multiple reasons why this approach makes perfect sense and will ultimately continue to give Ripple the edge in this space. For one, as previously discussed, bank implementations are anything but a one shot deal, we are seriously talking about a conservative 3-5 year timeline to iron out all regulatory concerns and to initially implement a product that does not currently have the capability to majorly disrupt current business processes. From there, we are then looking at yearly projects that incrementally inch closer to the ultimate goal, aka XRapid. Since Ripple's technology is so disruptive I would literally compare this process to upgrading and replacing all the wiring and electrical components in an old home. So for point one, it makes sense that as Ripple traverses their current partnerships and continues to build confidence that they also look to expand their use case. As we all know this space moves incredibly quickly, if anything you should be concerned if this type of approach was not taken. Point two, the quickest way to bypass all the politics in banking and really gain momentum in implementing or expanding your product is through bank customer and vendor acceptance. If company A uses XRapid and loves it they will certainly pressure their bank to move in the same direction in order to further their overall cost savings. This is a fact and I have personally seen this occur many many times. Point three, targeting processors and bank vendors. These are the old wires I talked about in step one. This is where interoperability will pay off or a complete migration will take place. In short, to me, Ripple is strategically planning to place themselves in a position where banks will literally be surrounded by customers, vendors, and other banks that have already adopted Ripple in one form or another. This is where we are at now and the final step would be to turnover and massively adopt XRapid. It will take time, but more and more pieces are coming together. I am sure David's statement did not mean banks were not the target forever. I could be wrong here, but from a business and technology perspective it would make sense to view bank usage of XRP as more of a longer term goal. P.S. I apologize for the unanswered questions in my previous post, eventually I will address them. I do not post regularly but felt that this topic could use some elaboration and clarification. Thanks.
  4. @tokens what competitve advantage do you have over other exchange ICOs such as STeX who will offer multiple pairings for all cryptos, free trades, and token holders receive 100% of transaction fee distribution every month? I am not financially involved in this market but would like to understand what will make your trading platform better than what is already out or coming out?
  5. @XRPeteSampras @Xrpdude When you were in your role at the bank, did you ever bring up Ripple to your company? If not, was anyone else talking about it? I did not mention Ripple specifically due to the contractual obligations I knew the business had with their current payment processor. I did mention blockchain a few times over the years in order to gauge everyone's response and understanding of the technology, but the responses I received all indicated that most still thought it was "too new". Please keep in mind that this is only for the business I supported, which from a top financial institution perspective is just one piece of the puzzle. Brad Garlinghouse, in referring to banks who are adopting Ripple but are not yet utilizing xRapid, said that it would inevitably happen and that "the capital will flow to the most efficient path." What is your opinion on whether or not the banks will be inevitably adopting xRapid and using XRP? How resistant do you think banks would be to using xrp? In my experience, new technological services and products were generally incrementally implemented with short and long term strategic goals. Meaning that we may focus on all the compliance, infrastructure, and integration work within a single main project that aims to just deliver the foundational essentials. Then over the next few years or so we will have back to back smaller projects that serve the purpose of expanding the overall utility of the service or product. This approach minimizes the overall risk of disruption, provides additional time for impact assessments (remember all the downstreams, upstreams, and sidestreams need to be considered), and also allows us to keep the project momentum moving forward. This ultimately results in a well-polished, finalized product or service that is fit for purpose, fit for use, and most importantly strategically aligned with the overall objectives of the business. So in short, yes, I do think banks will inevitably adopt the usage of XRP. It will occur incrementally and will more than likely be ran in tandem with the solution they have in place today until their comfort level rises. We heard rumors that there was considerable FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) at SWELL in the conference rooms. Do you buy this? Do you think perhaps Ripple's success will be increasing exponentially in the coming years, signing up more and more banks? In my post I originally had a fourth section that was titled "Strategy and Solutions" which covers this question and a few others that I have seen in regards to this post. I ultimately decided to take it out for multiple reasons. I do think SWELL created a considerable amount of FOMO but in my opinion the FOMO was to just get the banks to seriously start considering a blockchain solution. Strategically, I have to think Ripple did this intentionally to educate the banks on just how outdated their technology and processes are in comparison to multiple different kinds of blockchain solutions that are currently available. The moment the FOMO set in was the moment the bankers realized that by today's technological standards their solutions are at best in like 7th or 8th place (for example). Again, the strategy that Ripple has shown is nothing short of amazing because right when that FOMO set in Ripple was already discussing the importance of interoperability. I do not know what the blockchain competence level was of all the attendees at Swell but there is a large impactful difference between one company saying "I can save you money through better tech" versus five plus companies saying "No matter what you choose you just need to understand that all of these solutions are 100x better than what you have today and at this point it does not really matter which solution you choose because we can all interoperate and meet any demand". I feel that their strategy was necessary in order to finally break the overall denial that banks were having towards a blockchain solution. In my opinion, Ripple positioned itself perfectly and is more than likely seen as the leader of this space since it was them who publicly orchestrated the notion of interoperability. So yes, I do think that Ripple's success will grow exponentially in the coming years and that they will sign up many more banks. @Sebastian The only thing I would like to point out, which you may already know, is the CLS-Group (who accounts for 50% of the FX swap market with $5-10 trillion daily) could be behind the IBM/Stellar project. But I have no idea if having them backing and funding the project will lead to faster than normal adoption. It really depends on the extent in which the members are accountable for when CLS makes this kind of decision. At minimum it assures that the members have a blockchain solution that they can all implement and benefit from. However, what would the consequences or repercussions be if one of them changed their mind and went for a different solution other than the one CLS/Stellar? I ask this because to me bank adoption does not mean line of business utilization. To me, adoption means that the vendor has passed all preliminary checks and that the product or service will now be available to use within the bank at the bank’s discretion. Furthermore, if selected for use in a line of business the product or service will still need to be evaluated against the regulatory and compliance standards that are specific to the line of business it is supporting. I have seen solutions that were adopted by the bank I worked for but ultimately was turned down by myself and the business I supported. Sure it was utilized in other areas of the bank where it made sense but from a risk and compliance perspective it did not make sense for us to use it. What I am getting at here is that the bank is not a one size fit all adopter and utilizer of specific services and solutions, hence once again the importance of interoperability. Lastly, considering the disruptive nature of blockchain technology now would be perfect time for all banks to evaluate the state of current partnerships, memberships, and commitments. @Pointbreak I would like to get your thoughts on the other major partnership with Stellar. Stellar was originally and I believe still is backed by Stripe which last year was estimated to process about 20billion in transactions. Even though they are a payment gateway for merchants, the integration required with the merchants banking partner would give Stripe significant insights into the regulatory, compliance and security requirements. However, I dont know how helpful this would be when we are talking about cross boarder payments. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the Stripe business model or the processes and procedures they have in place for payments and compliance. @TiffanyHayden Thank you so much for such a thorough post! If you don't mind me asking, how much influence did the board of directors have regarding the tech choices made by your bank? You seem light years ahead of the board members I have spoken with and I'm wondering if, in your experience, the board stifles innovation or has the board been hands-off with tech decisions? In my experience I have never seen where a new technology was adopted and implemented based on the board’s decision or influence. Not to say that it did not happen, just in my experience they appeared to be hands-off. I say this because all of the long term new technology project requests I received came directly from either my executive management or business executive management.
  6. Good Afternoon Everyone, I want to thank you all for the warm welcome and support that everyone has provided towards this post. I have seen some very good follow up questions throughout the thread and will be responding to them hopefully within the next few days.
  7. Hello Everyone, Long time lurker and first time poster here. I decided to make a post that I believe will help the community better understand the banking landscape. I worked at a top financial institution for 10 years and left the banking industry close to four months ago to pursue other opportunities. When I left the bank I was a VP of Technology that managed the overall internal IT support for vendor supplied applications and payment processing services. A major part of my responsibilities was to ensure that all vendor applications and services that I managed met regulatory and bank defined compliance standards. In addition to that I also led the IT Strategy and Solutions portion for the business I supported, which required me to evaluate new products and services that were being offered by our existing payment processing vendors. I am a Ripple supporter and the points I go over below are based off my experiences in the banking industry and my knowledge of the Ripple product. I am by no means a Ripple expert, and by no means arguing that one crypto is better than the next. I am just an ex-banker who has extensive knowledge of the Consumer and Commercial Payment Processing world. Regulation - Overcoming industry regulation and abiding to bank compliance standards is the largest hurdle for any vendor that wants to do business with a bank. I can tell you that the bank I worked for was seen as having possibly the best compliance standards in place that went far beyond the normal regulatory requirements. To top this off, it was mandatory that all vendors had to meet the bank's compliance standards in order for business to continue. Failure to comply within the specified SLAs opens the door to decommissioning the service and ending the relationship. I can tell you from personal experience that I have been involved in conversations where top industry vendors were hard pressed to meet these deadlines and were ultimately informed by myself that if they did not the bank would start taking steps to decommissioning their service. To further clarify, there are quarterly internally performed bank audits for every vendor (SOX, PCI, AML, Frank Dodd, etc.), semi- annual 3rd party audits (PwC), and annually performed ethical penetration tests performed by the bank or a bank recommend vendor. So a grand total of 6 audits and an ethical hack, every year, where the expectation is that the vendor must attest to remediate any findings that were found within a 6 - 12 month time period, depending on the severity of the finding. I can also tell you that when I left my position I was immediately offered 2 positions at other large banks where they wanted to take their IT compliance in the same direction as the bank I just left. To sum this up, in order to become a successful vendor to a bank you are literally expected to go a few steps ahead of current regulatory requirements while also allowing the bank to essentially pick apart whatever service you are offering on a regular basis. In my opinion, the fact that Ripple has successfully signed 100 banks means that they have anticipated and sufficiently prepared for this from day one. A bank would not sign unless Ripple passed these tests and agreed to continue to do so on a regular basis for as long as the relationship lasts. I also want to point out that these requirements are even more stringent and bring along additional layers of audit when you are talking about cross-border payment solutions. Interoperability - From an IT Strategy and Solutions perspective Ripple has the edge on everyone. Why? For one, their primary focus was to start off by focusing on areas where the most cross-border transactions and remittances are processed. So what does this have to do with Interoperability and the hidden gem that it appears so many missed during Swell. Well, when banks look at new services they are not only looking at the component that the new service replaces they are also looking at all upstreams, downstreams, and sidestreams because they want a solution they can literally forklift in with little to no disruptions across their organization. This is where the importance of interoperability comes in and the siloed Ripple vision needs to be expanded. Every line of business is a like a spider web that is interwoven into many other businesses within an organization. What you may think is a non-impact could very well be an impact that needs to be addressed, even if this impact has nothing to do with the service that is being implemented. Having a solution that is interoperable with other blockchain solutions reduces the amount of customized work that Ripple would have to potentially complete in order to onboard a bank. It is not a partnership, it is an understanding of the services offered by others in the same space and seeing where both solutions can overlap through compatibility, ultimately helping out both companies and delivering the solution that the client wants. At a time like this, when blockchain technology is becoming more mainstream, it is important to understand that you cannot spend three or four times your normal implementation time for each client as that limits you to the opportunities you can capitalize on during such a critical time. Ripple clearly understands this and has successfully communicated their thoughts on interoperability during the Swell conference. Stellar Lumens - The IBM relationship was definitely a big win for them. Regardless of the length or any other stipulations in place. I say this because most if not all financial institutions still rely on mainframe technology. Notice how cobalt developers are in such high demand. Mainframes process 90% of transactions in the world currently so a partnership with IBM essentially gives Stellar a foot in the door. Commercially this will help them, however, from a financial institution perspective I can say from experience that all the points I noted in the regulatory section above apply to technologies offered by existing vendors. What this means is that if IBM (or MasterCard) went to a bank and said "we can now do everything Ripple can through Stellar and build on our existing relationship", the bank would say "well before we commit to onboarding this new tech we need access to the system backend, permission to hack it, check it against all regulations and whatever is found would need to be fixed before we can even consider it, oh and we got to audit it 6 a times a year, hack it once a year, need you to attest that you agree with all this and that all remediation's are done within a specified timeframe and that going forward if you ever fail to comply we will decommission your service and end the relationship with no penalty." My overall opinion here is that for one the space is large enough for both to be successful and for two I cannot really see Stellar being as successful as Ripple in the financial institution space. IBM can guide Stellar through all the regulatory and auditing requirements of banks but in my opinion by the time they are ready to move forward Ripple would already be five steps ahead. I do think Stellar will be successful, just in their own way. To put this in perspective, I have seen industry leaders take anywhere from 1-3 years to get their new, non-disruptive service approved and implemented. A new vendor in this space could easily take 3-5 years, since Stellar probably has IBM guiding them I could see 2-4 years. This is where Ripple shines, with 100 banks already signed they clearly anticipated this hurdle. It would really not surprise me to find out that they invested more into compliance than into product development. In short, it does not matter who, why, when, where, and in what circumstance bank data or processes around bank data are touched. As soon as it is touched in any way shape or form it is subject to all the compliance points I listed above. In closing, Ripple is a marathon crypto, and I truly believe the overall success will be a slow and steady one, which is good. I normally never, ever post on forums and this will literally be the second or third time that I have. I only did so because I felt my experience would help everyone understand what it truly takes for a new piece of technology to be adopted by a bank. My personal opinion on this entire landscape is that I believe Ripple, Stellar, and OmiseGo will all be successful. Ripple in my opinion is the current front runner because they have already signed 100 plus banks, meaning they have already cleared these compliance hurdles and already have a process in place that can continuously deliver the same results. I would be very curious to see how long it takes for a headline to appear stating "Stellar signs X bank through IBM". My opinion is that this will not occur for at least another year or two. If requested, I can certainly validate my experience through a trusted source such as Hodor, Dre Ventures, Joel Katz or any other respected community member. Thanks, I hope this post helps.
×
×
  • Create New...