Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is a reason why WU still need all their infrastructure, and that is because paper money is still far too prevalent, especially in developing countries (with some exceptions in east asia). How are you going to turn your XRP into Bolivian boliviano without that same infrastructure? Also, the XRP/BS corridor has 0 volume, so that part of the market also has to be built out, and this is only one country...
 
At the moment, the opportunity is very limited due to these problems. It is also a business model Ripple doesn't know intimately and would be a huge risk to expand into it, even if they had the capital. Analogy: BMW are very good at making cars, they have some of the best engineers there, there is some spare cash lying around, would you expect them to go into manufacturing/designing kitchens? It may be a lucrative market, but businesses generally don't like to expand into areas that they don't really have expertise in. One other major issue is infrastructure, as this takes time/know how to build out before seeing a return, and money spent over time with no return = higher risk if no risk premium (Discounted cash flow) and I could go on and on...basically terrible idea.
 
One idea that I have thought about, but I'm not entirely sure if it is faesible/there are probably some major issues here. Ripple gives 80-90% of the XRP it holds to the IMF (to keep). The IMF, using some of it's deposits as collateral and it's wide network of loans to developing countries/connections helps develop the cross-border transaction network, potentially with even loans being on the XRP ledger. Money can be tracked easily, it is transparent and it would synchronize well with it's current activities that could be mutually beneficial. 99.99% chance it will never happen since IMF is a non-porift, it would be favourtisim/market interference and probably a load of other issues.
I think indeed some are underestimating the need for paper money and physical presence. That's why wu isn't out of this market for a long time. Nor do I see any reason for ripple to get into this make and get every other similar company against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

I've been shouting at BMW for years to refocus on making the cars what they once were. Don't go giving them ideas about home furnishings.

Lol my parents have a BMW. They are getting older so I took their car in for maintenance. They bought a five year bs maintenance plan for brakes, oil change, etc. After they worked on the car they told me I had to come back to have the windshield wiper fluid changed because the technician that does it was out for his son's graduation. I almost **** myself. Windshield wiper fluid technician. Get real.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Scott said:

I've been shouting at BMW for years to refocus on making the cars what they once were. Don't go giving them ideas about home furnishings.

Agreed. A neighbour of mine has a second-generation 7 Series, beautiful car. The modern iterations are a mere imitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember

"In 2000, the founder of Netflix flew to meet Blockbuster’s CEO"  to proposed a partnership....Blockbuster "refused to move away from physical retail stores"....

"In 2004...Blockbuster’s... finally recognized that Netflix and others had altered the movie rental landscape and decided to invest heavily in the digital platform" and " planned to eliminate late fees"

"even though late fees were a major customer irritant, Blockbuster, with its thousands of retail locations, millions of customers and massive marketing budget, had until then relied on these fees as a key source of revenue"

...and you know the rest...Blockbuster went bankrupt in 2010...Netflix is now worth more than 100 Billions USD

When you learn about the past you have better chance not to repeat the same mistake...but who reads anymore lol

http://dune.srl/why-go-digital-2/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capone said:

The problem with businesses like Western Union is that they are not interested on lowering the fees for their customers. Any savings from blockchain and cryptos they want to pocket it. 

Interesting thought. Maybe saving time and money has created a problem for them. If they save a lot of money through blockchain they would have to reduce their fees or there would be a lot of complaints etc. Even though they might become more profitable they would be reducing their revenue and that’s a big problem. Every company wants to be number one and have the most revenue possible. It builds their reputation as market leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zerpaholic said:

Interesting thought. Maybe saving time and money has created a problem for them. If they save a lot of money through blockchain they would have to reduce their fees or there would be a lot of complaints etc. Even though they might become more profitable they would be reducing their revenue and that’s a big problem. Every company wants to be number one and have the most revenue possible. It builds their reputation as market leader.

Of course blockchain can be profitable for them but the only way they will lower their fees is from competition. Complaints from whom ? The poor uneducated Mexican guy who has to pay $7 to send $50 to his family back in Mexico ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capone said:

The problem with businesses like Western Union is that they are not interested on lowering the fees for their customers. Any savings from blockchain and cryptos they want to pocket it. 

If they implemented xRapid, they could lower their fees while still increasing their profit margins.  It could be a win win for both WU and the customer.  They don't need to pass on the entire 40-60% savings onto the customer.  Decrease customer fees by 10-20% and pocket the rest as profit.  

I'm interested to see if WU can survive the next 10 years.  I think of them as Blockbuster Video in the early 90s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jumanji said:

If they implemented xRapid, they could lower their fees while still increasing their profit margins.  It could be a win win for both WU and the customer.  They don't need to pass on the entire 40-60% savings onto the customer.  Decrease customer fees by 10-20% and pocket the rest as profit.  

I'm interested to see if WU can survive the next 10 years.  I think of them as Blockbuster Video in the early 90s.  

I also think it will be very hard for them. There will be very strong competition from blockchain and crypto. 

But I think they will adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone familiar with WU’s model and the flow behind their cross border payments? Are they even moving money the sender’s funds from Point A to Point B with each individual  transaction like SWIFT? Or is their model to keep enough local currency on hand to fund the payment to the recipient at Point B in local currency?

If it’s the latter, then I would imagine the WU system is simply a bilateral messaging service that potentially already occurs in near real time without incurring the sorts of time inefficiencies and clearing and settlement costs that banks and other payment providers experience in their business model(s) in which the sender’s funds must pass through corespondent banking channels before finally reaching the destination country

To that end, it would make sense if their current model doesn’t reap the same advantages as other international payment providers and FIs, which could explain the lack of enthusiasm.

Also, the “Internet of Value” and the eventual ability for consumers to send funds from their XRP wallet to anyone in the world with a Ripple wallet, or to an unaffiliated FI or payment provider could be viewed as a threat to their existence, hence the dismissiveness of Ripple by the CEO.

Still, WU must move high value payments cross-border to fund their accounts around the world, which could ostensibly save them money in the clearing and settlement of these larger cross-border payments, but not the individual transaction level payments.

This could explain why the measly 10 transactions didn’t amount to game changing savings and transaction speed that xRapid is able to achieve for others in the space, while also posing a threat to WU if both the sender and receiver wouldn’t be required to utilize WU’s services. 

In conclusion (and this is pure speculation), it’s highly possible that WU doesn’t need Ripple/XRP for their legacy model, and perhaps views Ripple as a potential disruption to their market share.

The IOV will hopefully, eventually democratize cross-border Payments for P2P, B2B, and B2C, as companies outside of Ripple begin to roll out more decentralized models featuring extremely low transaction costs (passed on to the transacting as fees), rendering WU obsolete in the future global financial services landscape. 

This would explain their blatant attempt to undermine  Ripple’s technology. I don’t view the CEO’s statements as reflecting negatively on Ripple’s technology, but more a reflection of WU’s longstanding business model and fear that universal adoption could ultimately lead to their own demise.

Note: much of the above is purely hypothetical though, so if anyone has additional insight into how their payment flows work and may be the outlier in the space, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DjemDiamond said:

 

If ripple change everything in western Union to run on there own system. 

It will be a ripple system. 

Then ripple could maybe buy them out lol. 

200 banks, MoneyGram, Western Union using Ripple products... so now Ripple owns their networks? And Microsoft owns their computers? And their cleaning service owns the toilets?

wow, so that’s how ownership works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott said:

I've been shouting at BMW for years to refocus on making the cars what they once were. Don't go giving them ideas about home furnishings.

From what I’ve been reading, they’re getting back on track. I can’t personally attest to this as having a child pretty much sucks away my discretionary income. They’ve been Audi’s b*tch for a while now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, futureledger said:

Is anyone familiar with WU’s model and the flow behind their cross border payments? Are they even moving money the sender’s funds from Point A to Point B with each individual  transaction like SWIFT? Or is their model to keep enough local currency on hand to fund the payment to the recipient at Point B in local currency?

If it’s the latter, then I would imagine the WU system is simply a bilateral messaging service that potentially already occurs in near real time without incurring the sorts of time inefficiencies and clearing and settlement costs that banks and other payment providers experience in their business model(s) in which the sender’s funds must pass through corespondent banking channels before finally reaching the destination country

To that end, it would make sense if their current model doesn’t reap the same advantages as other international payment providers and FIs, which could explain the lack of enthusiasm.

Also, the “Internet of Value” and the eventual ability for consumers to send funds from their XRP wallet to anyone in the world with a Ripple wallet, or to an unaffiliated FI or payment provider could be viewed as a threat to their existence, hence the dismissiveness of Ripple by the CEO.

Still, WU must move high value payments cross-border to fund their accounts around the world, which could ostensibly save them money in the clearing and settlement of these larger cross-border payments, but not the individual transaction level payments.

This could explain why the measly 10 transactions didn’t amount to game changing savings and transaction speed that xRapid is able to achieve for others in the space, while also posing a threat to WU if both the sender and receiver wouldn’t be required to utilize WU’s services. 

In conclusion (and this is pure speculation), it’s highly possible that WU doesn’t need Ripple/XRP for their legacy model, and perhaps views Ripple as a potential disruption to their market share.

The IOV will hopefully, eventually democratize cross-border Payments for P2P, B2B, and B2C, as companies outside of Ripple begin to roll out more decentralized models featuring extremely low transaction costs (passed on to the transacting as fees), rendering WU obsolete in the future global financial services landscape. 

This would explain their blatant attempt to undermine  Ripple’s technology. I don’t view the CEO’s statements as reflecting negatively on Ripple’s technology, but more a reflection of WU’s longstanding business model and fear that universal adoption could ultimately lead to their own demise.

Note: much of the above is purely hypothetical though, so if anyone has additional insight into how their payment flows work and may be the outlier in the space, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

 

If competition between remittances companies like Western Union , Union Pay , Cuallix and others force them to lower fees to customers then blockchain and Crypto will bring no benefits to them. That’s the dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×