Is this legit: Swift has been testing XRP ?

[richxrp 394]

Anybody know whether this is legit or not ?

https://thexrpdaily.com/2019/10/02/magazine-confirms-that-swift-has-been-testing-ripple-and-is-satisfied-with-speed-and-low-cost/

...Seems to be so, as  even CryptoEri mentions this in her youtube session today: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4fYqEWzgpg

Edited October 2 by richxrp

[Archbob 645]

More legit than all the other claims that are made solely by youtubers and twitter people. I'll have to wait on SWIFT making an announcement or what SWIFT reps actually say on it(if they say anything at all). They did say it wasn't ready for mainstream use so even if they did test it, it'll probably be a few years before they implement it.

[jargoman 346]

If they are then they are probably testing XRP for use with R3's corda through gpi. 

swift would be a competitor to ripple but not XRP

[Roaring_Twenties 1,323]

I think it’s possibly a case of finally seeing light and becoming part of the new standard. I kind of got this impression this summer when BG was with Gottfried Leibbrandt just before he stepped down.

I know he always plugged SWIFT’s GPI but his demeanor (to me) seemed disingenuous about it. I don’t find it too hard of a stretch to see that eventually SWIFT leadership decides to become part of the solution instead of remaining a great part of the problem and ultimately becoming extinct. 

I hope it’s true and they do become teammates. They already have all the connections. They’re just stuck in the 1970’s wrt technology and performance. Time will tell...

[damascus1986 429]

44 minutes ago, jargoman said:

If they are then they are probably testing XRP for use with R3's corda through gpi. 

swift would be a competitor to ripple but not XRP

agreed but we shall see in time!

[lysistrada 179]

Honestly, while I would love if this were true, if I had to guess I think this magazine did some lackluster online research and got it wrong and just wrote some incorrect information that people are latching on to with way too much vigor.  I think that if Swift is doing anything it's via the pathway of GPI to R3/Corda with use of XRP for settlement, which is great as well.  But this whole headline just seems to me like a relatively obscure publication getting it accidentally wrong.

Edited October 3 by lysistrada
clarification

[panmores 1,888]

2 hours ago, jargoman said:

If they are then they are probably testing XRP for use with R3's corda through gpi. 

swift would be a competitor to ripple but not XRP

The author is not some XRP army dreamboy, but the CEO of a dedicated think tank. I think his credibility would be at stake.

[RikkiTikki 1,408]

1 hour ago, panmores said:

The author is not some XRP army dreamboy, but the CEO of a dedicated think tank. I think his credibility would be at stake.

Exactly!!

[xrp-pat 1,761]

8 hours ago, Archbob said:

 They did say it wasn't ready for mainstream use so even if they did test it, it'll probably be a few years before they implement it.

Possibly due to not enough corridors or liquidity?

[Archbob 645]

3 minutes ago, xrp-pat said:

Possibly due to not enough corridors or liquidity?

There also a lot of regulatory stuff(not just the security issue) to hash out. One example is how much XRP do you need to hold is a liquidity to use x-rapid.

For instance, current banking regulations in many places mandate that banks in many regions hold 30 days of transactions worth of pre-funded accounts to resolve in case of emergencies. This is one of the main reasons there is so much in pre-funded accounts.

To run x-rapid, each exchange also must have rules about how many days worth of XRP you have to hold for x-rapid transactions and such because with X-rapid(Or ODL or whatever) you are essentially asking banks to trade their pre-funded accounts for a liquidity pool held at the exchanges.

[dik 226]

I think the author is confusing the Swift DLT PoC early  last year with "testing Ripple".

Here are the results. "DLT not yet ready" was the conclusion (and repeated in that article).

[2ndtimearound 6,346]

1 hour ago, Archbob said:

There also a lot of regulatory stuff(not just the security issue) to hash out. One example is how much XRP do you need to hold is a liquidity to use x-rapid.

For instance, current banking regulations in many places mandate that banks in many regions hold 30 days of transactions worth of pre-funded accounts to resolve in case of emergencies. This is one of the main reasons there is so much in pre-funded accounts.

To run x-rapid, each exchange also must have rules about how many days worth of XRP you have to hold for x-rapid transactions and such because with X-rapid(Or ODL or whatever) you are essentially asking banks to trade their pre-funded accounts for a liquidity pool held at the exchanges.

It's not like they will switch dramatically from using nostro to using xRapid....it will be done gradually over time.  It might even just be 0.5% using xRapid, 99.5% through existing system...then 1%....then 1.5%.  It will be (in my mind) a gradual build up of xRapid liquidity over time. 

[QWE 228]

18 minutes ago, 2ndtimearound said:

It's not like they will switch dramatically from using nostro to using xRapid....it will be done gradually over time.  It might even just be 0.5% using xRapid, 99.5% through existing system...then 1%....then 1.5%.  It will be (in my mind) a gradual build up of xRapid liquidity over time. 

I completely agree with this. I strongly doubt there is a “switch to flip” that will suddenly put xRapid into production and completely replace legacy rails.

 

A far more likely scenario is for a bank or payment provider to have an option to either use their existing rails or use RippleNet when executing a specific payment. If it’s cheaper to use xRapid, they can select that option, and if the corridor is not liquid enough (or their legacy solution is cheaper for that specific payment), they can still opt for their traditional system.

 

Example: Moneygram needs to send 10,000 USD to Mexico. If they get 9,900 USD worth of MXN on the other side with xRapid, they can still choose to send it via SWIFT, which would get them 9,950 USD worth of MXN on the other side.

However, if the corridor is liquid enough at that moment and they can get 9,980 USD worth of MXN to the other side, they can just click the xRapid option and get it done.

 

This is a simplified example of what I believe is happening behind the scenes. No FI is going to use xRapid and completely shut their SWIFT/legacy rails on day one. That wouldn’t make sense.

 

But as corridors become more liquid and xRapid transactions become more common, the ecosystem grows, attracting more market makers, which create more liquidity, which creates less spreads and xRapid transactions becomes a superior option more often.

It’s a snowball effect from there on, until eventually most transactions go through xRapid rather than SWIFT/legacy rails. That is, if the corridors ever become liquid enough for that to work, of course, but Ripple is supposedly working on that part.

[SquaryBone 220]

More legit than all the other claims that are made solely by youtubers and twitter people. I'll have to wait on SWIFT making an announcement or what SWIFT reps actually say on it(if they say anything at all). They did say it wasn't ready for mainstream use so even if they did test it, it'll probably be a few years before they implement it.

If they implement it.

[djdhrubs 4,295]

Does the article mention XRP or just Ripple? Isn't this just SWIFT using a bit of what was known as xCurrent?