Jump to content

Pablo

Moderator
  • Content Count

    1,374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Pablo last won the day on July 11

Pablo had the most liked content!

10 Followers

About Pablo

  • Rank
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. For those interested in the Tarun Chitra artical Hugo refers to in the interview, you can find it at the following link - I read this a few weeks ago as part of some research I'm doing into PoS and DeFi platforms: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11156 Tarun has completed several papers in this space that are also relevant including a paper from last year demonstrating how stakers can dramatically reduce PoS network security if block rewards fall below the expected yields of on-chain lending. We're seeing that battle for liquidity this week between SUSHI and Uniswap. Hugo refers to "canib
  2. Wonderful work yet again @brjXRP17. I had a search through Patentscope but didn't come up with anything either. I will say this - using "RTGS" as the name of your business and registering related trademarks under the Madrid system (as they have done), seems a bit cheeky given they have used generic words "Real Time Gross Settlement". It will be interesting to see what happens there. I still view that business as small beans.
  3. For someone apparently so good at seeing through BS, I'm surprised you took this bait so quickly. They sure got you hook, line and sinker. I think that's why people suspect your motives - you didn't once apply any of your supposedly superior analytical skills to the announcement and identify any issues. If you had done that, you would have found lots of red flags to be worried about. Didn't see any of them? Here, let me help you: How does one "lock" liquidity? No amount of messaging, legal agreements or technology is going to "lock" liquidity unless the requesting bank is giv
  4. We’re assuming this went to legal. In my 25 years in-house, the general theme is that the business folk and marketing make a decision before legal ever finds out. And I’ve also given advice about trademarks that was routinely ignored because it cost money and time to fix. Also, no in-house team scours the web for trademarks. It’s a full time job done by specialised teams and search providers used in the large firms and they would have come across the NPP Australia trademarks if asked. We’re also assuming that Australia is a target market for Ripple. Losing the ability to use PayID
  5. It's more a full, quick retreat. I guess that's friendly, in a way. Undertakings are the highest level of promise that can be given by any lawyer and are almost never given because failure to comply with an undertaking could result in the lawyer going to jail. I've never given one because if they are poorly worded, the lawyer takes the entire hit for their client and themselves. The undertaking was offered probably because it was the quickest possible way to shut this down without further proceedings or cost for the parties. Ripple had no chance of winning anything and it doesn't sto
  6. Agreed. And yet NPP Australia felt the need to carpet-bomb the PayID trademark and march down to the Federal Court and file proceedings. That alone is worth noting as it means everyone is watching Ripple's moves and recognises them as a serous market player.
  7. @LeonidasH Breaking news: Ripple has given undertakings in their case against NPP Australia. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD916/2020/3897521/event/30420547/document/1656602
  8. That's certainly interesting but no official channels support the supposed "reporting". Seems premature given how fresh the case is.
  9. That trademark is for the letters only and was not approved by IP Australia - it wasn't the trademark that lapsed, it was that they gave up the application process and didn't pursue it, probably because they were advised of problems with the trademark (which I mentioned above isn't sufficiently distinctive for the "letters only" trademark). Registered trademarks stay on the register for 10 years but they can remain registered in perpetuity if the owner pays the renewal fees every 10 years. Assuming Ripple even defends the matter, I don't see how they can use "PayID" or similar tradem
  10. I suggest you follow Wietse's instructions - has a tool that appends the correct numbers for you but just be aware that any errors are on you so please double-check each step. https://coil.com/p/wietse/Prepare-for-claiming-your-Spark-token-Flare-Networks-a-tool-for-XUMM-XRPToolkit/NkXJQUqpi
  11. This was exactly my point regarding the competitive environment that would come into play with Flare. The move from PoW to PoS (or whatever ETH 2.0 will look like) is high risk but there are precedents. Tron shifted consensus and managed that without any major fallout but ETH is a different kettle of fish with over 1300 ERC-20 tokens sitting off the backend and thousands of EVM smart contracts that need to be ported across. It is a gargantuan undertaking which they are sensibly breaking down into phases. Too late? I don't think Vitalik and co have any choice if they want to rema
  12. It's probably too early to say which way Ripple will play this - keeping in mind that NPP's legal action is pre-empting Ripple's entry into the Australian market. Ripple doesn't have any real presence in Australia yet as they only announced a few weeks ago and no Australian would think of PayID as anything other than NPP's one (which is obviously proving rather successful based on the anecdotal evidence I've heard). Ripple's PayID is on another league as it opens up international payments. What would be great to see is the two parties arrange a collaboration to link up the Australian PayI
  13. That is highly unusual and isn't reflected in Australia's trademark laws. A basic principle of trademark law is that you can't have 2 similar trademarks in the same class so the parties will need to resolve this somehow. A few points here: - Ripple has only recently filed PayID trademarks in the US - neither of which has been granted yet. One of their applications is for "PayID" which has been opposed by a third party (whose own trademark application has not been granted!). I don't think just using the letters "PayID" or similar is sufficient as a trademark so it'll probably be rejec
  14. Agreed. Hence my caution in avoiding over the top predictions and hopium. There’s a long way to go but smart contract platforms usually take off quickly or die a fast death of disinterest. Something tells me Flare will be different to previous attempts using Codius because Flare has a dedicated team and have the incentives in place to support the platform and drive success. Plus there are financial benefits via arbitrage and fees for participants and liquidity providers on the platform. Also, Flare gets a leg up in getting access to Ripple-friendly exchanges that smaller projects co
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.