Search the Community

Disclaimer: Strictly for fun! Not financial advice! Also, would love anybody to expand on or talk about the flaws in this. Also unsure if this has been talked about already! So someone, 4y ago, asked: “Why does XRP need a value to be used on the RippleNetwork by banks if it will be adopted? Can’t it be used with zero value?” In summary, David Schwartz responded: “No, can’t be used unless it’s value and liquidity is sufficient, and the more value and liquidity the broader range of payments it can be used to settle. The easiest way to see why this is so is to think about bitcoin. Four years ago, you couldn’t buy a house with bitcoin. You can today. But it would be very hard today to settle a $1 billion payment with bitcoin. If bitcoin’s price ever goes to $1,000,000, you could then settle a $1 billion payment with it.” Link: https://www.quora.com/If-a-large-amount-of-banks-were-to-adopt-xrapid-and-started-using-xrp-how-would-that-impact-the-tokens-value In other words - BTC’s price at the time of posting this (probably between $4k-10k) would be adequate for something like a house payment, but move the market way too much with regard to large-volume institutional payments, and hence a settlement for $1Billion using BTC would be much more efficient (or preferred) at $1million a token. Now, for fun, let’s F around and play with this very specific, but very intriguing, example by D.Schwartz, and easily calculate some good ol prices. Problem: If 1 BTC needs to = $1,000,000 to settle a $1,000,000,000 payment & total supply = 21,000,000 then what does 1 XRP need to = to settle the same amount with a total supply = 100,000,000,000 Solution: (21000000*1000000*1000000000)/(1000000000*100000000000) = XRP (equate market caps to solve xrp price) Turns out, 1 XRP = $210, in this scenario. Well, that is with a total supply available on-market or on-demand. Now, what about a much lower available supply, especially the designated supply dedicated to specifically settling high volume payments on RippleNet (ODL)? What about most of XRP is existing/sitting on global institutional balance sheets in the future? What about constant transactions and settlements taking place, rather than a one off? Multi-billions of dollars, frequently? What about XRP settling a whole bunch of other stuff - NFTs, tokenized real-estate, other equities but also stocks and debt securities? Smart-Contract capabilities? On chain and off-chain settlements, ILP? Plain Lockups and staking? I’ve read that something like 5% of the supply is what will eventually be in-use. Might be bs. Anyway, using the same equation and scenario - a sufficient BTC price to settle a $1B payment that won’t move the market too much - and ignoring a whole bunch of other variables and adjustments that should probably be made on both XRP’s and BTC’s sides (lol, this is very much a massive assumption and strictly for fun): Assuming % of XRP supply on-demand = $ 100% = $210 50% = $420 30% = $700 10% = $2100 5% = $4200 1% = $21000 Again, would love for anyone to expand on or find the flaws in this (i know there are many)!

After the discussion within the thread "The impossibility of liquidity in xrp" went on I was asked the following: In the last several hours I created a document that hopefully gives a clearer overview of the cross-border settlement process with the use of XRP and the corresponding balance sheet operations as I understood it: https://de.scribd.com/document/396839492/Xrp-Balance-Sheet-Operations-v1-0 Please do not hesitate to correct me if I have made false assumptions or if you discover any other critical points as I do neither work at Ripple or at any bank that is implementing or using xRapid. The document merely reflects my current gaps in knowledge. 9th of January, 2019: updated to v1.4

https://www.coindesk.com/gmos-new-internet-bank-will-settle-payments-with-blockchain/ Japanese digital services firm GMO Internet has just launched a new web bank that it says will soon use blockchain to facilitate payments. The firm said in a company notice that it had teamed up with Aozora Bank Group on the joint enterprise and that the two firms had been preparing for the launch of the "next-generation" bank since mid-2016. Azora is part of the SBI consortium.

Today's blog discusses technical analysis' current dominance of crypto markets; but it's also where I make a startling prediction. I predict that fundamental analysis will eventually rule the day in the crypto markets; I talk about which factors that individual investors should consider when evaluating crypto choices, and then point out where XRP stands in the mix. In crypto, it may be buyer beware, but investors have the ability to reduce their risk by conducting a proper analysis of choices. Hope you enjoy the read - please leave any feedback below. Also, feel free to share my blog with a friend or on any other media or platform - and thank you for doing so! Twitter Reddit r/Ripple Reddit r/CryptoCurrency Reddit r/CryptoMarkets Reddit r/xrp Reddit r/RippleTalk Bitcointalk - alt coin sub forum Bitcointalk - XRP speculation thread

How about this chap. I don't know if he also means Ripple, but as his tone is so ridiculously conservative, I tend to think that even banks that doubt crypto will give crypto a try, just to show some balance ?. https://www.coindesk.com/bis-chief-slams-bitcoin-as-ponzi-scheme-and-threat-to-central-banks/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/general-manager-of-bis-wants-to-prevent-crypto-from-joining-main-financial-system

Hi there, as far as I understood IPL, xRapid and XRP: Within the Ripple network xRapid uses ILP in order to transact any kind of chosen asset value pair directly or by bridging them with XRP (or any other bridging value(s) that reduces the transaction costs). For any transaction a small amount of XRP is needed in order to prevent spamming. Additionaly there are at least 20 XRP needed to be hold on the Ripple network account to validate the network account (node). So the XRP accounting is pretty clear: they are part of the Ripple network and the owner of the node they are allocated to, holds them simultaneously. The jurisdictional part here is identical with the accounting. But how about any other value? Let's assume, A wants to exchange USD with EUR, the process should look like this: Transaction 1: A buys any bridging asset value (e.g. XRP) with USD from B. Transaction 2: A sells that bridging asset value for EUR to C. All is documented within the Ripple network (blockchain technology) and the jurisdictional settlement of the XRP from B to C is done within seconds. But I do not understand how the jurisdictional settlement of the USD and EUR is actually really done. Won't A still need at least an external account (on a trading platform, financial institute, whatever) where 1) the USD are transfered from A to B and 2) the EUR are transfered from C to A and therefore would still have the conventionell settlement process? The accounting of USD and EUR (or any other asset value) within the Ripple network does not mean that the actual jurisdictional transfer (ownership) is simultaneously finally settled as the Ripple network itself is not a jurisdictional institution which is liable to pending liabilities. I would appreciate any clarification on this topic. Regards

Too much FUD lately but I came across this YouTube video with some valid points and ideas about Xrps greater use. Basically another way xrp becomes the standard.

I've read elsewhere that RippleNet and ILP allow for faster payments and that XRP allows for faster settlements. I just want to check that my understanding of XRP's role in fast settlements is correct. Say I'm a bank and want to pay $100 to a bank in Japan that only accepts yen. Currently I would use a market maker who handles the currency conversion so I send $100 to the market maker and then the he converts it to yen and sends it to the Japanese bank. The payment is complete and RippleNet/ILP has sped this up, but settlement still has to occur where my $100 to the market maker must settle by traditional (probably?) correspondent banking and the market maker's payment of $100 worth of yen to the Japanese bank must also settle by traditional means. The delays occur from two settlements. If instead I use XRP to pay the market maker, so I pay him $100 worth of XRP and he then pays out yen to the Japanese bank, there is only one "leg" of the settlement that must occur by slower traditional means, the settlement of yen transferring from the market maker to the japanese bank, instead of two. Since XRP is a digital asset and is extremely fast, my payment to the market maker is pretty much settled in real time. Settlement time is expedited by using XRP for one leg of the transaction "journey". Is this the right way to think about it?

I'd like to start a friendly and honest conversation about Zelle and what the implications behind this are for the "promise of distributed ledger (IE, blockchain)". -This will probably require the insight of some people who work in banking that can maybe explain the key components here and what the implications are. -I know Zelle isn't used for overseas payments. I know it's not competing with XRP. -What I want to talk about is what the massive banks seem to be doing to address what customers want. Instant settlement, mobile application, P2P digital transactions, security, etc... (Those of us who are aware of history understand that the status quo only has to improve to "good enough" when competing with new technology) There are massive banks here in the US behind Zelle. What that says to me is that the banks are interested in working only with each other and they're concerned about competition from the likes of Venmo, Applepay, Paypal, etc...It also shows that they're willing to do something it. I believe this has direct implications to the potential future of companies like Ripple and therefore assets like XRP. (Yes, I know, Zelle isn't for cross border settlements. I know about nostro accounts. I'm aware of Forex.) What I'm trying to bring to the discussion is whether or not it is technologically possible for these banks to simply drive over and crush the blockchain world and provide a product that looks and acts like a duck (to quote Brad...) Is it possible that this indicates that there will be little to no room in the banks mind for a third party company to provide distributed ledger technology and quick settlement between banks? They are banks after all and have nearly limitless resources to come up with their own solutions to give just good enough service that the general public will swallow their pill without question. Banks aren't sitting around like idiots waiting for some company to make them obsolete...they're going to compete. Please, feel free to add insight and experience into the equation.

This is a *really* impressive response to the ESMA discussion paper by Lykke, who act as an exchange, app and crypto-asset. Worth reading in full but my personal highlights are below. https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/dtl_securities_markets #awesomesauce

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moiravetter/2017/04/29/female-fintech-founder-on-series-f-and-the-future-of-payments/#31453e0e2d40 https://www.nvoicepay.com/ Now for the details .... here's the diagram from Nvoicepay: My question - I wonder what they use for international vendor settlement? I mean, that's the whole point, right? Seems like a perfect fit for a Ripple-enabled bank to me. They just need a payment connector or something...

https://ripple.com/insights/ripple-and-xrp-can-cut-banks-global-settlement-costs-up-to-60-percent/

"Hyperledger has taken a different approach than many other blockchain systems by removing what they consider unnecessary features and provide just shared replicated ledgers. In their view, this core technology, the distributed ledger, can then be integrated into existing systems to allow banks and financial institutions to settle in real time, mitigating risk and the need for expensive reconciliation without the need for a central party. http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf

Pointed to from Alec Liu, this paper is a fantastic article that points at the massive wave of fintech pushing against banks right now: http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/global/en/2016/feb/BlockChain-In-Capital-Markets.pdf