Had The SEC ETF Announcement Been Over XRP

[Tim]

How would today have been different, had XRP and the RCL technology been at the center of the SEC news announcement?

A ) If all exchanges were gateways and listed off ledger XRP

• -A-  If they were integrated to process a deposit and withdrawal in one ledger close event, the price discovery of all digital assets (including XRP) would have been much more efficient
• -A- If ledgers started getting full with volume, the transaction fee would spike (less failed transactions because fee logic on RCL is flexible and predictable).
• -A- Total XRP network volume would be distributed slightly more efficiently, since some volume can offload to the RCL for arbitrage, and such. 

B ) If all exchanges just listed off ledger XRP

• -B- If they were integrated to process a deposit and withdrawal in one ledger close event, the price discovery of XRP at each exchange would have been much more efficient. 

C ) If all exchanges were ILP enabled

• -C- Price discovery would converge to a lower bound globally, for all assets, including XRP.
• -C- Depending on local rail speed, transactions could potentially be delivered to users in minutes, or seconds. 
• -C- An ETF wouldn't be needed?

D ) If all devices were ILP enabled

• -D- Anyone connected to the internet could pay anyone else in the world, any amount, during any time of the announcement, in any asset, instantly.
• -D- The best price would be available for everyone, and all services would be in competition to offer the best rate / fees.
• -D- An ETF wouldn't be needed?

E ) What was the craziest thing you saw today in the BTC exchanges during the announcement?

• -E- 

Ripple has the intention to ensure XRP meets compliance standards that would enable it as the world reserve currency. Given that, and their growing relationship with banks, enabling complaint solutions of international foreign exchange, it might have had a better chance passing. 

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Tim
Added bullets for readability

[Guest plutopark]

Well, after reading the entire post, the first thing that comes to mind is... Are you asking whether or not ALL securities and assets should be trading on ILP/RCL? 

[Takio]

I think Tim is a lot more advanced then us  Thank you Tim for sharing thoughts! Thanks alot!

[Droopy]

2 hours ago, Tim said:

Ripple has the intention to ensure XRP meets compliance standards that would enable it as the world reserve currency.

As coming from a Ripple employee I find this to be interesting. Is this a plan of action for Ripple? @Dizer @Hodor @tomb @Haydentiff @kanaas @Duke67

[Alex1]

3 hours ago, Tim said:

How would today have been different, had XRP and the RCL technology been at the center of the SEC news announcement?

...XRP meets compliance standards that would enable it as the world reserve currency. Given that, and their growing relationship with banks, enabling complaint solutions of international foreign exchange, it might have had a better chance passing. 

Yeah. But 'failed' BTC doing well and 'new world reserve currency' can't rise even to $1.
So, there are successful coins - they will be expensive as gold despite any news.
And there are unsuccessfull coins. They will be cheap as dirt despite any news.

Oh, oh, sorry, I forgot that patience is important: by the year 2317 'new world reserve currency' will rise and shine. But it probably will be ETH, lol.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Alex1

[Guest]

to become a world reserve currency governments must hold significant quantities of all XRP. I think we are far away from that goal.

And I am not shure if it's good if a reserve currency rises in value.. And that's why we are all here I guess

[jn_r]

3 hours ago, Alex1 said:

Yeah. But 'failed' BTC doing well and 'new world reserve currency' can't rise even to $1.

To be on par with BTC it only has to rise to $0.48 (16 mln BTC / 37 bln XRP * 1185), but nevertheless, still far from that

[Hodor]

7 hours ago, Tim said:

How would today have been different, had XRP and the RCL technology been at the center of the SEC news announcement?

@Tim One of the main reasons behind the ETF rejection is a concern over easily-determinable market pricing and regulation of the markets for trading bitcoin: 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/us-sec-rejects-application-to-list-bitcoin-etf.html

Quote

The regulators have questions and concerns about how the funds would work and whether they could be priced and trade effectively, according to a financial industry source familiar with the SEC's thinking.

Your subsequent brainstorm listing contains some ideas that might impact that concern. 

In answer to your question about whether an ETF is needed, that's one that is a valid question:  The Winklevoss ETF would not have been a true index ETF, right?  It would instead have been heavily dependent on the price of the token itself, not in the stocks of the companies invested in BTC.  I think that might have contributed to the rejection.  Given that, what would an index fund do for liquidity of XRP?  I think a true index fund would benefit XRP, because it would invest in businesses that build on RCL.  That's the benefit of a true ETF, not one that solely rests on investing in the token itself. 

 

[Guest]

I am not sure I understand the import of Tim's message. Below, I have cleaned up the bullets as I found them difficult to parse.

--

How would today have been different, had XRP and the RCL technology been at the center of the SEC news announcement?

A ) If all exchanges were gateways and listed off ledger XRP

-  If they were integrated to process a deposit and withdrawal in one ledger close event, the price discovery of all digital assets (including XRP) would have been much more efficient

- If ledgers started getting full with volume, the transaction fee would spike (less failed transactions because fee logic on RCL is flexible and predictable).

- Total XRP network volume would be distributed slightly more efficiently, since some volume can offload to the RCL for arbitrage, and such. 

 

B ) If all exchanges just listed off ledger XRP

- If they were integrated to process a deposit and withdrawal in one ledger close event, the price discovery of XRP at each exchange would have been much more efficient. 

 

C ) If all exchanges were ILP enabled

- Price discovery would converge to a lower bound globally, for all assets, including XRP.

- Depending on local rail speed, transactions could potentially be delivered to users in minutes, or seconds. 

- An ETF wouldn't be needed?

 

D ) If all devices were ILP enabled

- Anyone connected to the internet could pay anyone else in the world, any amount, during any time of the announcement, in any asset, instantly.

- The best price would be available for everyone, and all services would be in competition to offer the best rate / fees.

- An ETF wouldn't be needed?

-- -----

I have read the SEC decision. The ETF was rejected because Bitcoin could not be regulated, and because most the transactions napped outside the US. 

https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx/2017/34-80206.pdf

--

i expect that a Ripple ETF would be rejected for the same reasons. ILP based systems could not be regulated and the transactions would happen outside the US. The SEC decisions seem to be antiquated and are definitely limiting Fintech in the US. Switzerland is far ahead in terms of accepting crypto. This is at odds with the number of Bitcoin nodes which primarily run in the US and Europe.

i guess the intent of the ETF was to bring in liquidity via mom and pop, and the institutional investors.

--

i am unclear where this leaves SolidX and the Silbert ETF applications.

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Guest

[Tim]

10 hours ago, plutopark said:

Well, after reading the entire post, the first thing that comes to mind is... Are you asking whether or not ALL securities and assets should be trading on ILP/RCL? 

I wonder what the world would look like, if they were? If the technology lived up to it's full potential?

We can all agree that's quite a distant view, however. The title of the post is what I'm actually wondering. If XRP had a 20 billion USD market cap like BTC, and was identically in the same place as BTC during the SEC ETF announcement yesterday - given the possible different integration models that could be implemented with such a large market cap.

[Tim]

4 hours ago, Hodor said:

Given that, what would an index fund do for liquidity of XRP?

In a world where all exchanges were gateways (my scenario A) and listed off ledger XRP, without arbitrage between on and off ledger assets, it is perhaps the case that you could consider the RCL prices of XRP as the basis of an ETF. It would be the central ledger for which all exchanges are connected to. 

[Guest]

Hmmm... I like the idea of Ripple as a reserve currency.

--

You state... it would be the central ledger for which all exchanges are connected to.

Question:

Is this thinking prevalent within the Ripple ecosystem?

[Guest]

it's a very diff kind of conversation now to when chris larsen would talk about how the world didn't need a new currency, isn't it?! 

[Tim]

6 minutes ago, Max Entropy said:

Question:

Is this thinking prevalent within the Ripple ecosystem?

My views are my own.

I'm simply trying to imagine how yesterday's decision by the SEC would differ, if the XRP technology was in place of the BTC technology, given the different architecture models that XRP could possibly take. 

It's hard for me to imagine how the volatility and price discrepancy yesterday would have been worse, with a coin that settles quickly without chance of fork (e.g. 3 or 6 blocks need no be confirmed for a deposit to confirm).

[Guest]

Ok, so I am finding your comments here... very useful... Thanks Tim.