Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jheff

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Stablecoins aren't bank coins. I'm not worried about Tether, USDC, etc. JPMC is not just a stablecoin on Binance that scrapes a few bps off the top. It is the combination of banking giants and stablecoins that is the problem. Maybe XRP has a chance in the remittance industry but to my prior point about the securities and derivatives industry? Yeah, no shot. JPM has a stablecoin and smart contract platform for this and has the book of business. This limits the use cases for XRP and definitely reduces the future value of the investment.
  2. Yes, they are committed. Banking is all about relationships. Banks will lend to companies at a more favorable rate if they think that they can generate millions in advisory fees down the line. Relationships matter in banking.
  3. JPM was already "entrenched" in the crypto asset industry before they announced JPMC? Nope, I don't think so. They had Quorum but they just announced JPMC. They were already entrenched in banking and will continue to be entrenched. The fact they're looking to move into crypto legitimizes the digital asset space, sure. You still haven't even acknowledged the fact that an "entrenched" player in the financial system moving in to compete in the digital asset space where there are already established players like Ripple is worrisome. Any rational person would be worried. You aren't being rational because of your familiarity bias, endowment bias, and status quo bias.
  4. Yeah, if companies feel like the cost outweighs the benefits to compete with Ripple, they wouldn't sink millions into developing their own tech. Pretty simple logic. Enough with the FUD accusations. No agenda here, I'm just not blindly dismissing potential threats to the future value of my investment. I'm in the top 1.6% of accounts.
  5. As would I. But in the article, Application 2 talks about securities issuances. JPM already has huge capital markets, investment banking coverage, and sales and trading businesses. So they have the upper hand in actually facilitating and trading the issuance of options, futures, swaps, and exotic derivatives. Not to mention they'd be underwriting the equity and bond issuances as well. This was the #1 use case of Codius IMO.
  6. Fair points. But let's see Jamie Dimon, $2.6 trillion, and 100+ years of client relationships and banking industry knowledge go up against Ripple and XRP. Inflationary and liability points are weak in my opinion, especially the liability one for reasons I discussed. XRP does have the edge in being deflationary though. Inflation is just something the world economy has fixes for. When inflation comes back into the picture interest rates go higher and the inflation problem is fixed once the economy cools off.
  7. Because they clearly think the large investment is worth the business they'd generate as a result of competing in the digital asset remittance space. Same thought process any business makes when deciding to finance expansions. Instead of partnering they see an opportunity to compete and leverage the expertise and relationships they have vs. partner and let Ripple earn the revenue. You're also talking about HTC, who made the first Android smartphone. They didn't just enter the smartphone market to try and mimic Samsung. JPM is going into the digital asset space because they see an opportunity to put something better out there, kind of like how Samsung came into the Android space after HTC...
  8. Yeah, and if you can prove escrowed dollars or repo securities back the liability, it's not a liability. If banks have liabilities that are outstanding in the form of loans or bonds, they are allowed to match the value of the liabilities in cash or money market instruments and remove the liability from the balance sheet. Same situation here. The fact that JPMC is a liability isn't a problem.
  9. Forex dealers in that country, most likely JPM themselves. They buy back the coins and take the USD out of escrow. Someone posted earlier about JPMC covering only internal transfers so maybe I'm jumping the gun. I'm guessing JPM would try and make their currency the universal acceptable asset over XRP which would really be tokenized USD as the universal asset. Maybe I'm wrong, it just doesn't look good when JPM could partner with Ripple, use XRP, but instead decide to develop JPMC.
  10. Yes, I have and that is a good point. Large financial institutions that have the money to develop internal coins won't use XRP. But the premise of value I see on these forums that take a stab on the intrinsic value of XRP claim mass adoption. If JPM, GS, BAML, and MS all make their own coin that takes away a large percentage of the remittance market considering they have most if not all of the largest corporate banking clients in the US. Maybe XRP gets used by overseas banks. I don't know about that market so I'm not going to speculate, but this hurts business for Ripple and XRP in the US.
  11. JPM coin is the bridge currency. Here is a scenario: JPM Corporate client needs to pay for industrial machinery in yen. They escrow cash, JPM issues them JPMC and sends JPMC to a) the wallet of the seller of the machinery or b) a wallet of the client and converts at the JPMC/Yen spot rate to pay for the machinery. JPMC/Yen spot rate will be at the USD/Yen spot rate because the USD is escrowed before coins are created so 1 JPMC = 1 USD. The flow of funds would be USD -> JPMC -> Yen. If this scenario was to be mirrored with XRP this would be the flow of funds: USD -> XRP -> Yen. No exchange rate risk of JPMC since it is pegged to USD. If clients are banking with JPM why would they switch over to Ripple and XRP if JPM has their own coin. People don't consider the value clients place on past relationships and trust. I'd bet money on CEOs and CFOs sticking with the status quo and the conservative approach to just stick with JPM. Why go from Bank Coin 1 to XRP to Bank Coin 2 when Bank Coin 1 and 2 are backed by fiat? Just create a Bank Coin 1/Bank Coin 2 trading pair. All of this just shows banks would rather develop their own coin in-house than work with Ripple. Centralization and the selling points of XRP don't matter to them. The banking system is already centralized.
  12. Well just because I'm a newbie on the site doesn't mean I don't bring up any valid points. You didn't even address the stance I took. As investors, we need to bring up any bias when discussing news that materially affects the future value of an asset... I thought that clarifying I am long XRP would prevent someone from just claiming that my take is FUD. You don't have to agree but instead of just bashing, why don't you pick apart my response and prove me wrong?
  13. Let's look at this objectively rather than in an ignorant light. After reading this article you can't honestly say that this doesn't compete with what Ripple is trying to do with XRP. While I love Ripple and XRP it is important to recognize your own bias as an investor rather than conform to your bias. This materially changes things for an investment in XRP. In bold is a section of the CNBC article posted today about the applications of JPMC. Real-time settlement There are three early applications for the JPM Coin, according to Farooq. The first is for international payments for large corporate clients, which now typically happens using wire transfers between financial institutions on decades-old networks like Swift. Instead of sometimes taking more than a day to settle because institutions have cut-off times for transactions and countries operate on different systems, the payments will settle in real time, and at any time of day, he said. The second is for securities transactions. In April, J.P. Morgan tested a debt issuance on the blockchain, creating a virtual simulation of a $150 million certificate of deposit for a Canadian bank. Rather than relying on wires to buy the issuance — resulting in a time gap between settling the transaction and being paid for it — institutional investors can use the J.P. Morgan token, resulting in instant settlements. The final use would be for huge corporations that use J.P Morgan's treasury services business to replace the dollars they hold in subsidiaries across the world. Unseen by retail customers, the business handles a significant chunk of the world's regulated money flows for companies from Honeywell International to Facebook, moving dollars for activities like employee and supplier payments. It generated $9 billion in revenue last year for the bank. Ok - so they issue JPM coin backed by USD. I will go through the three applications in the article. First application: they transfer money to Country X from the US using JPM coin and buy the foreign currency in the spot market. If 1 JPMC = 1 USD and if 1 USD = .89 EUR then 1 JPM = .89 EUR. They sell the JMPC to a currency dealer and then redeem the JPMC for dollars and destroy the JPMC. This competes with Ripple. Second application: This was exactly what got me excited about XRP's use case. No one realized the true potential of XRP since the derivatives and securities markets make up the vast majority of traded assets in the world. Again, JPM has first mover advantage in sales, trading, and already has a huge client base and relationships with institutional and corporate clients. BNP Paribas tested this exact securities issuance process with Ethereum last year. Why would a big bank use Ripple's services and XRP if they can either a) develop their own or b) use JPMC. Third Application: This is what XRP was supposed to become after capturing the international remittance market. All these longshot rumors surrounding Amazon and Uber using XRP for intercompany payments just became that much less unlikely. It was a good application and idea from whoever started it and I agreed that treasury was a perfect application of XRP, but why would a company partner with Ripple if they already have a relationship with JPM. This isn't FUD, this is my opinion. I own a lot of XRP and reading this article today from CNBC was a pretty big blow. There's no way to spin this and say this doesn't directly compete and threaten what Ripple is trying to do with XRP. Before anyone says JPMC is centralized if you're a client of theirs, why would you care? If you already have corporate accounts and a long-standing relationship with the bank everything is already centralized. It just speeds up admin and back-office operations and makes JPM offer lower cost services and offer a competitive advantage. Why would any company sign on to Ripple now that the leading (or second leading to GS) financial institution in the world has its own in house crypto that has the same selling points? Obviously, I'd like to be corrected but this is just my take on it. I would love to hear from others about why this isn't as much of a threat as I think it is.
  14. They don't own poloniex. circle owns poloniex.
  • Create New...