Jump to content
zerpener

“Past, Present and future of the International Monetary System” - Brad Garlinghouse Presents at Swiss National Bank conference

Recommended Posts

Yeah I don’t think that last question was as good as it could be. Summarizing below as accurately as I can without hearing it over again too many times...

“I still think there’s a tendency to overstate the problem” (in reference to his recent money transfer problem costing him 10 dollars and 24hrs)

This part is important to me because it implies that from his perspective, the problem Ripple is focused on isn’t that big of a problem to solve.

Now he’s obviously a brilliant guy, experienced in the banking industry, a connected person as he was in attendance and I, on the other hand, am far away on the opposite of side of the spectrum in comparison. But I think I’m closer to the pain point that Ripple has set out to resolve and he’s probably far removed from the same pain point and that likely contributes to his lack of empathy and understanding. His inability to understand and appreciate the problem is a weakness I perceive in him before he asks his question.

“Brad everyone wants your liquidity nobody, wants to provide it so my question is: Could there be a run on Ripple?” 

This time, because he places little value on the problem, he’s possibly placed lesser value on Ripple’s countermeasure so his question comes off (while believably honest) a little sideways and forces Brad to try and answer it directly without coming across as avoiding it, spinning it or asking him a series of clarifying questions to get a clear, focused meaningful question to answer.

From my perspective I see that what could have been a really great time and place to field a meaningful question and provide a meaningful “ah hah moment for the banking elite” was likely squandered more so by a poorly defined question than the answer Brad provided.

It’s unfortunate that this question opportunity came at a time that was depicted as being beyond their time allotted and at a likely point of fatigue and desire for a bio break for all in attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Roaring_Twenties said:

Yeah I don’t think that last question was as good as it could be. Summarizing below as accurately as I can without hearing it over again too many times...

“I still think there’s a tendency to overstate the problem” (in reference to his recent money transfer problem costing him 10 dollars and 24hrs)

This part is important to me because it implies that from his perspective, the problem Ripple is focused on isn’t that big of a problem to solve.

Now he’s obviously a brilliant guy, experienced in the banking industry, a connected person as he was in attendance and I, on the other hand, am far away on the opposite of side of the spectrum in comparison. But I think I’m closer to the pain point that Ripple has set out to resolve and he’s probably far removed from the same pain point and that likely contributes to his lack of empathy and understanding. His inability to understand and appreciate the problem is a weakness I perceive in him before he asks his question.

“Brad everyone wants your liquidity nobody, wants to provide it so my question is: Could there be a run on Ripple?” 

This time, because he places little value on the problem, he’s possibly placed lesser value on Ripple’s countermeasure so his question comes off (while believably honest) a little sideways and forces Brad to try and answer it directly without coming across as avoiding it, spinning it or asking him a series of clarifying questions to get a clear, focused meaningful question to answer.

From my perspective I see that what could have been a really great time and place to field a meaningful question and provide a meaningful “ah hah moment for the banking elite” was likely squandered more so by a poorly defined question than the answer Brad provided.

It’s unfortunate that this question opportunity came at a time that was depicted as being beyond their time allotted and at a likely point of fatigue and desire for a bio break for all in attendance.

I'm sure many and more productive side conversations are held outside of the actual meeting. 

I don't think anyone is running out the door as soon as it ends... Except for maybe the guy who abruptly woke up at 7:17.  He's probably going to back to his room and take a nap as soon as he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Truckdriver said:

Ok , so we have Brad speaking with the Swiss National Bank Foundation and Christine Lagarde (IMF President) also present , no other Fintech providers there.

No brainer that Ripple is going to make billions of dollars revenue with xCurrent alone during the coming years. Swift 1.0 (did they even participate in the event?) cannot compete with Swift 2.0 (Ripple's xCurrent). Ripple owns most of XRPs and hence they will push helluva lot XRP adoption to the FIs and also outside FIs via xPring. Will XRP go to moon? I dunno but I know xCurrent alone will succeed big time.

Yeah, I know it makes totally sense that inflating and (soon) obsolete ETH is the second crypto in terms of market cap. :wacko3:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spiras said:

I'm sure many and more productive side conversations are held outside of the actual meeting. 

Yeah I was going to mention that as well.

I can only assume that there were a lot of great conversations off camera and several conversations that weren’t that productive as well. Some of these folks may just have too many paradigms getting in their way to be engaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hallwaymonitor said:

Yeah, I know it makes totally sense that inflating and (soon) obsolete ETH is the second crypto in terms of market cap. :wacko3:

I feel violated :bad: after watching and listening to video with the volume almost muted for just under half of the clip.

Really great to see the difference in culture between XRP and ETH. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Roaring_Twenties said:

Yeah I don’t think that last question was as good as it could be. Summarizing below as accurately as I can without hearing it over again too many times...

“I still think there’s a tendency to overstate the problem” (in reference to his recent money transfer problem costing him 10 dollars and 24hrs)

This part is important to me because it implies that from his perspective, the problem Ripple is focused on isn’t that big of a problem to solve.

Now he’s obviously a brilliant guy, experienced in the banking industry, a connected person as he was in attendance and I, on the other hand, am far away on the opposite of side of the spectrum in comparison. But I think I’m closer to the pain point that Ripple has set out to resolve and he’s probably far removed from the same pain point and that likely contributes to his lack of empathy and understanding. His inability to understand and appreciate the problem is a weakness I perceive in him before he asks his question.

 

This time, because he places little value on the problem, he’s possibly placed lesser value on Ripple’s countermeasure so his question comes off (while believably honest) a little sideways and forces Brad to try and answer it directly without coming across as avoiding it, spinning it or asking him a series of clarifying questions to get a clear, focused meaningful question to answer.

From my perspective I see that what could have been a really great time and place to field a meaningful question and provide a meaningful “ah hah moment for the banking elite” was likely squandered more so by a poorly defined question than the answer Brad provided.

It’s unfortunate that this question opportunity came at a time that was depicted as being beyond their time allotted and at a likely point of fatigue and desire for a bio break for all in attendance.

Am I the only one who found the question meaningless? “Brad everyone wants your liquidity nobody, wants to provide it so my question is: Could there be a run on Ripple?”   I think I understand what a run on a bank is, I learnt that when I watched Mary Poppins as a child:  Banks take deposits from the public and then they lend out those deposits to clients who want to borrow money from the bank.  If all the depositors ask to withdraw their money at once the banks do not have the money, and there is a run on the bank.  With ripple there are no depositors and no money lent out by Ripple.

So what on earth is a "run on Ripple"?   I had the impression Brad did not know either, which is why his reply seemed to stumble around and he seemed to be making up a reply from thin air. I thought the episode was extremely odd?

Am I am missing something?

 

Edited by Julian_Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

Am I the only one who found the question meaningless?

Nope. That’s my point @Julian_Williams

I think the gentleman asking the question is out of his element. He doesn’t understand Ripple’s vision, problem solving need and capabilities well enough to ask an intelligent question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s clear that he meant to say ‘run on XRP’, but confused Ripple the company with XRP. In the context of a bank run, the question doesn’t really apply to XRP. Banks don’t hold 100% customer assets in reserve, maybe only 20%. Significant withdrawals from a bank could mean that they don’t meet their minimum reserve requirements, or worse, default on their obligations.

With XRP, either you own it or you don’t. If there is a ‘run on XRP’ (demand for the asset), and not enough sellers to supply the demand then...

 

If I was BradG, I would just smile and nod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roaring_Twenties said:

I think the gentleman asking the question is out of his element. He doesn’t understand Ripple’s vision, problem solving need and capabilities well enough to ask an intelligent question. 

Exactly my thoughts too. Do you remember that a few weeks back Navin Gupta gave one of his presentations in the Middle East and one Arab looking guy from the audience asked something like: "is there mining?" Navin replied and the Arab looking guy bluntly shouted: "thank you!" and did not let Navin to finish up his answer. THAT was another instance just like you described in above which signals to me that Ripple is still in very, very early in the selling process of XRP/xRapid as far as central banks are concerned.

Share this post


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

I think it’s clear that he meant to say ‘run on XRP’, but confused Ripple the company with XRP. In the context of a bank run, the question doesn’t really apply to XRP. Banks don’t hold 100% customer assets in reserve, maybe only 20%. Significant withdrawals from a bank could mean that they don’t meet their minimum reserve requirements, or worse, default on their obligations.

With XRP, either you own it or you don’t. If there is a ‘run on XRP’ (demand for the asset), and not enough sellers to supply the demand then...

 

If I was BradG, I would just smile and nod. 

Enter 589

Share this post


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

"thank you!" and did not let Navin to finish up his answer. THAT was another instance just like you described in above which signals to me that Ripple is still in very, very early in the selling process of XRP/xRapid as far as central banks are concerned.

Yes I do and agree @hallwaymonitor

People are used to a certain way of understanding something and if it doesn’t match what they know to be the best way in their “understanding of it” they reject it.

Keeping on point with the Swiss, an example from the late 60s: the “quartz crisis “.

“In 1962, the Centre Electronique Horloger (CEH), consisting of around 20 Swiss watch manufacturers, was established in Neuchâtel to develop a Swiss-made quartz wristwatch, while simultaneously in Japan, Seiko was also working on an electric watch and developing quartz technology.”  

So the Swiss were early pioneers in quartz watch engineering but by the late 60s early 70s the Japanese were suddenly renowned in quartz watch production.

Why? Were the Japanese smarter? Were they suddenly better at watch manufacturing than the Swiss? No. They weren’t hindered by their paradigms.

To Swiss watchmakers the quartz watch was viewed as nothing more than a novelty. After all it had no spring. It could be cheaply produced and sold. It required no series of precision made gears, in fact no internal moving parts of any kind. How could it be viewed as any good?

Swiss watch makers had enjoyed decades of a prosperous monopoly having 50% of the global market while commanding good money for their quality time pieces. To the Japanese, a quartz watch made perfect sense. Durable, reliable, fast, easy and cheap to produce and sell. Their approach was to fill a massive global need for low cost yet accurate and durable time pieces. They had no paradigm to break. They only saw value. They boldly challenged the experts paradigm.

The result was a Japanese revolution in production and a decimation of Swiss watch maker jobs in under a decade.

While possibly not the best explanation of what happened Wikipedia has an article that’s pretty good:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_crisis

Point being with all this is I think we’re witnessing a like-revolution happening before our eyes. It’s harder for us to see perhaps because of NDAs and the secretive nature of finance but I think the future shows its hand every once in a while. The gentleman’s question reminds me of a like experience in Switzerland where being blinded by ones paradigm can obscure what is presented and end in dire consequences.

The good news is Ripple is steadily converting those who originally didn’t see the value and those that do get often become the best supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

So what on earth is a "run on Ripple"?   I had the impression Brad did not know either, which is why his reply seemed to stumble around and he seemed to be making up a reply from thin air. I thought the episode was extremely odd?

 Am I am missing something?

I agree with you guys saying that some in the room would no doubt be locked in old paradigms.

But in this case I don’t think the question is as dumb as it sounded.  These guys are discussing reworking international finance... that’s a big big thing and you really don’t want to get it wrong.  The central part of many of the roles of those in that room is to ensure stability.

In my opinion when he said ‘run in ripple’ he actually meant ‘run on XRP’.  Which is an odd wording but I believe he was trying to say this:

“What happens if we do reorganise world finance and cross-border trade is done largely (or exclusively?) by exchanging XRP programmatically.  Obviously the liquidity of xrp will be huge because of the volumes.  And price will be higher providing the liquidity need.  Now what happens if,  two years after maxing out on this new system,  there is a crisis of confidence in the XRP asset?  For some reason people fear it’s value won’t hold so the sell their holdings.  The price collapses.  A run on ‘ripple’.

That process would dry up the liquidity that the xrp cross border solution requires to operate.  Is there a mechanism of last support like there is in existing financial engineering?”

When put this way it’s a reasonable question to ask, and there will need to be a good answer.  I’m guessing the answer will involve the IMF somehow having custody and capacity with an XRP pool.

I’m just trying to say that assuming he meant Ripple the company, and not ripple (XRP) the asset, is probably incorrect in my opinion.  And if you elaborate his shortcut phrasing,  it does become a serious question. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, amazing that Ripple was at the table for this public meeting of world financial wizards!!!! certainly speaks Volumes! wonder who invited Ripple cause i don't think they just paid a conference fee to seat in that room or at that table? and if the conference organizers where willing to showcase Ripple in public i suspect some significant discussions took place in private. and these wizards are all about privacy!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...