Jump to content

Did Ripple Scrub CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s Wikipedia Page of Controversies?


xerxesramesepolybius
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BSVeritisium

I've looked into finding the actual SWIFT published error rate and didn't find it. Here is a link to the individual who has modified the wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BSVeritisium

This user has only worked on the wiki page.

The previous contributor who added the controversies was David Gerard who seems to be more active on the wiki page and apparently works with the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard

 

I'm not saying Brad was right or wrong at the time because I just don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a better article.

https://qrius.com/6-of-all-our-swift-transactions-may-fail-during-money-transfers/

Here is the paper the original authors that sated six percent got their information from.

https://www.swiftinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SWIFT-Institute-Working-Paper-No.-2012-006-Network-Analysis-of-Global-Payment-Flows_v5-FINAL.pdf

 

"The error rate referred to the accuracy of the model not the rate of errors in messages. In other words, the “six per cent error rate” was totally irrelevant. All of Garlinghouse and Ripple’s commentary on the error rate and what it meant was also, as a consequence, completely erroneous."

So it seems, if this is correct, then yes Brad Garlinghouse made a mistake about the 6% error rate. If there is to be conflict then it should lie within the fact that such data was not checked before being utilized to publicly promote an alternative payment system, and in this case it would Ripplenet.

Edited by peanut56
found qoute
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, peanut56 said:

So it seems, if this is correct, then yes Brad Garlinghouse made a mistake about the 6% error rate.


Maybe, maybe not....   perhaps he understated it.

From that paper:

Quote

Core-Periphery Structure
Craig and von Peter (2014) introduced the idea of a core-periphery or tiered structure in banking systems. A perfect core-periphery system has the following features.
• Core nodes are linked to all other core nodes.
• All core nodes are linked to at least one periphery node.
• Periphery nodes are not linked to any other periphery nodes.
In practice, financial systems rarely follow a perfect core-periphery structure; however, the classification of institutions as core and periphery has proved a useful generalization. Both the 99% and the 95% networks follow an approximate core-periphery structure, with an average error rate of 10.8% (range: 10.2% - 11.6%) for the 99% networks and 6.8% (range 6.3% - 7.4%) for the 95% networks. These error rates are in fact lower than that reported by Craig and von Peter (2014) for the German banking network (12.2%) in the original Core-Periphery paper, and also lower than the average 17.1% error rate reported for the Korean banking system Baek, Soram ̈aki, and Yoon (2014). Thus the core-periphery model fits both filtered payment networks quite well.

(My bolding)

 

 

Edited by Dogowner5
Added the understatement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2nd to not liking the motion, is the narrative.... .I think I dislike that more....

And at a not-so-distant 3rd.. well, that would have to be the agenda..... but damn.... you tie those 3 up into a tightly wound ball......

TRIFECTA!

 

GIF by NBA

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.