Jump to content

Pablo

Moderator
  • Content Count

    1,298
  • 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. I had a look at the ISO website the other day and there are a number of documents setting out various proposals and collateral produced by the committee. SWIFT drives quite a bit of this. https://www.iso20022.org/
  2. I'm wary of this announcement as these things can be used to "fatten the goose" for sale. As for the MG debt, WU is in a very strong position to either reduce or write-off debt as some creditors will look to WU as a white knight. Interestingly, MG has not filed for Chapter 11 as many US companies do in that situation but they certainly have some of the hallmarks of a distressed asset based on their current balance sheet. And yet the hedgies have not made a move on MG. That is telling in my book because they would typically love that type of scenario. Assuming this takeover talk is real, WU will need to add up the cost of integration - it won't be cheap or easy. And they are facing huge disruption - whether by Ripple, Libra or new market entrants. Their current business model is completely unsustainable in the medium to long term. In that sense, a buy-out of MG isn't part of any growth strategy. It only buys WU more time. The "Ripple Question" - technological disruption - is still there, staring them in the face. Saddled with newly acquired debt from an acquisition, and the huge internal disruption caused by integrating MG infrastructure, offices and staff, WU looks to me not like not the king of the jungle but instead a slow moving prime target for a new market entrant. And I'm sure that WU facing off with Ripple at meetings for the ISO20022 new payment standards will bring that into sharp focus.
  3. These are good questions - who would be entitled to reimbursement/reward and who decides that list at any moment? The way I understand @LilBender's proposal, the UNL would agree on a smart contract to decide relevant factors which would allow validators to aim at a transparent set of criteria for entry and reward distribution. Where it gets interesting for me is how that smart contract might play out over time. I've been looking at stablecoins recently and there are many unintended consequences and volatility created in a system as "simple" as maintaining a peg, amplified by the automated enforcement afforded by smart contracts and ability to link systems that have different incentive models. That's what makes DeFi is so fiendishly difficult.
  4. Interested to hear any other thoughts about staking or other incentive mechanisms on the XRPL. It would be a hugely controversial change, that's for sure!
  5. Yes, there have been some pivots but I never perceived them as dropping a "business model". Some of this stuff is marketing and branding changes. But if you mean they should have been more careful with these marketing pivots, I agree 100%. That can lead to confusion for clients, investors and partners. I think Ripple is still finding its feet - even today. But not everything Amazon did was a grand success either. Some things needed 2 or 3 attempts or many years of work to get right. One thing many understimate is that Ripple is constrained by the tech. It can't fail. Ever. AWS went down plenty of times in the early days. Everyone expects other projects to trip up. I'll let Jeff Bezos have the last words here:
  6. Here's the way a court would likely see this: "if Ripple sets up a non profit to handle payouts and “Donates” a portion of the escrow each month to this entity?" I think it's too late for Ripple to do this. If the Foundation wallet had been set up at genesis and given a wide remit to manage various tasks related to the XRPL and adoption (i.e. everything Coil does plus other matters such as payouts to validators, handling conferences, etc), they might have had a chance. In this sense, Ethereum got it right (shame about the tech). And we see their pay-off for starting with a sound corporate and governance structure. I should admit that because of the EVM, I very nearly became an ETH-head in the early days. And EVM was the reason I canned the idea. A solid layer 2 solution like Codius deserves much better.
  7. I've been reading a number of concerns raised over the last few months about the state of the UNL and increasing the number of validators by changing the incentive structure on the XRPL. There have been a number of people pushing this case pretty hard including @TiffanyHayden and @ToastWallet dev Richard Holland. This week I came across an interesting series of proposals on twitter: I felt this was worth some consideration and response and had an exchange with @LilBender which he kindly agreed to be reproduced below. His proposals meant going back to look at some assumptions about the current state of play as well so I tried to break this down for my own thinking here: 1. Community validators will "bleed away": If this is true, I don't see much evidence of it. Community validators were aware of the lack of fungible incentives from the beginning (thanks @Trickery for reminding me of the importance of "fungibility" in this setting). What has changed? Not much. Compare with Codius where hosts went in with high expectations of profits that failed to materialise. Here's the latest data (https://minivalist.cinn.app/) - this year, we've had 3 more validators join the UNL. Ripple is currently running only 17% of the UNL (and incredibly, only 2% of the mainnet). So validator numbers appear to be going up and Ripple dominance continues to drop. If anyone is going to claim a "bleed out", they're going to have to present some evidence to support their case. 2. Low/No incentivisation to running a validator: In fact, there are benefits to the current model that haven't been discussed, particularly when considering the legal risk allocation associated with running a validator/node/mining rig. Legal risk isn't a problem at the moment as the market is immature. Those who've lost money on hacks, scams, security breaches and smart-contract melt-downs have largely been (A) early adopters (B) speculators looking for high risk investments and (C) crypto folk. They almost expect to lose money. The DAO still hasn't resulted in any lawsuits. That's incredible. But it won't last. We still don't have widespread enterprise engagement or institutional investors. They and their shareholders don't like losing money. When the big dogs join us, I would not want to be a node/validator/miner responsible for the efficacy and security of a crypto platform. As the financial incentives of the node/validator/mining role increase, so do the legal risks. By not being paid a dime, UNL participants are quarantined to a large extent. Not completely, but significantly. 3. Staking as an option to increasing validator participation: Staking dynamics are still poorly understood and add systemic risk to the network. Smart contract payouts and staking invites many more bad actors and malevolence into the network and introduces numerous attack vectors that we simply don't understand fully or need. I'm all for 2nd and 3rd layer tools and apps but changes to the core and consensus model should be carefully considered and done slowly. In any event, I don't believe the Ripple escrow can be used to pay validators. That's payment for service which makes each validator contractually liable to Ripple (and investors) and creates an unmanageable cost item on Ripple's balance sheet. How do they cap that cost and who decides the fees? And doesn't paying validators increase the sell pressure as they recoup their costs each month? I'll need to think more about the staking idea from a securities standpoint. As I see it today, the XRP escrow cannot be used to pay investors who have staked XRP. If the escrow is programatically distributed to stakeholders (even if indirectly), that puts Ripple in an untenable position. It's a regulatory nightmare and opens up new problems in their securities cases. I think it's a no-go. I'm no purist but if investors want staking, there are plenty of other projects to invest in (and lose money on ). 4. That the XRPL is better served by paying stakeholders/validators rather than start-ups: Even if the XRPL was suffering an existential threat (which I see no evidence of), this model only seems to benefit short-term investors, not Ripple. Also on Amazon - I'm glad this has been raised because talk about the mother of all pivoters. An online book store pivots into an online marketplace, pivots into ebook devices, pivots into bricks and mortar, pivots into streaming devices and content, pivots into the completely unrelated industry of cloud computing. Will there be more pivots? Will there be mis-steps? Of course there will! Unpack AWS further - they got in very early (2002-4), they grew the business slowly (2011 is a key milestone for the market) and the competition is only now catching up. This has direct parallels to Ripple who are in a key market before anyone else and I don't see any real competition yet. They are operating in a legacy market and need users to convert infrastructure and processes and laws to take advantage of this new tech. Ripple must pivot, again and again and again, to remain competitive and profitable in coming years. I'll only get nervous when they stop.
  8. Here's the agent running the Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement, LLC case: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ppogodin/ Seriously out of his depth... Has zero securities law experience. The manner of the dismissal of his previous suit against FTX last year makes one wonder why they bother wasting everyone's time? I have to assume it's either self-funded or supported by a BTC maxi with nothing better to do than pester Ripple using a cheap-ass lawyer.
  9. Do you mean this tweet? I think he's pointing to the greater reliance on dev community to build out the environment and one of the main problems faced by Codius today - there just isn't enough development of it in the wild. That could rapidly change once the value proposition of Codius makes better commercial sense to hosts and devs. It could be triggered by a DeFi solution, online game, app or event. We know Logos is working on a XRP based DeFi solution so that necessarily means a smart contract platform (which we have to assume means Codius). But after what happened in 2018, it will be an interesting exercise to see how they re-boot the ecosystem. I suspect it would have to be enterprise driven, not "community" driven.
  10. You could look through these options from Bithomp: https://bithomp.com/wallets But I strongly advise that you verify the hash of any downloaded files (if the hash is provided) and preferably load the wallet and enter passwords on a clean, airgapped computer (if you have one). Typing in the wallet password on a computer connected to the internet has been the source of lots of problems and leaves open the risk that malware can capture your keys. Bithomp have helpfully provided important info on this: https://xrpcommunity.blog/bithomp-tools-using-offline-mode/
  11. That's a natural pick and one I would have been leaning towards. However this is muddied somewhat by the the Polysign leadership team, made up as it is of tech and finance folk. I've seen some ex-bankers try to run tech companies. It was a disaster. I think the strongest indication of what this is going to look like is in Polysign's choice of CEO and what his last job was - keep in mind that this CEO isn't some young whippersnapper out to revolutionise finance and change the world. He has a very specific set of skills and relationships: "Conifer Financial Services LLC operates as an asset services firm. The Company offers trade break reporting and resolution, asset and price verification, calculate net asset values, preparation of investor tax reporting, tax consulting, securities lending, client reporting, and brokerage services." (https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1251523D:US)
  12. The OP and this thread isn't a genuine attempt to discuss any topics. Locked.
  13. The screenshots I posted reveal 3 additional points: That he has configured LinkedIn to invite recruiters and companies to canvas him for potential roles; He has set his current title in a way that has nothing to do with Ripple; and He refers to himself as a "Crypto Payments Business Development Executive and Startup Advisor". Right-o. If he's doing that just to confuse the XRP community, it would have to go down as some of the weirdest behaviour from any exec I can recall. Pretending not to work for a company he works for just to trick some internet randoms and crypto-loons? What would institutional clients think? I have to assume instead that he uses LinkedIn the way most professionals do - correct/current titles and true representation of one's professional status. On that basis, his LinkedIn status is unambiguous and can be taken at face value. But hey, this is crypto so literally anything is possible.
  14. For what it's worth to confirm the news, I've taken some screenshots - I think that's a wrap for Miguel. And judging by his new "title" I suspect that he may not have left of his own timing (i.e. "off to spend more time with family"). Miguel might have been the right person early on but I expect that Ripple will do a gun hire to replace him for this next phase, particularly if it involves an IPO in the next 12/24 months.
  15. Critical thinking advances ideas, opens up new ones - we'd love to see people counter-argue a very simple thesis: Can Ethereum and XRP power CBDCs? If you don't believe so, why not and how could this be achieved? If impossible, you'll need to argue why. That's the sort of "critical thinking" that advances this forum and the general knowledge. If you aren't advancing the idea of this thread, you aren't thinking critically and have other motives. I hate echo-chambers as much as anyone but based on some of the negative comments above, it looks more like the latter. @King34Maine set the benchmark here. So, for those who want to test this idea, step up and argue your point or move along...
×
×
  • Create New...