Jump to content

Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, StirCrazy said:

Off topic aside for more context on LetHerRip's avatar:image.png.16cf298782570bb2f86c0d6210784816.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/András_Arató

By pure random chance, I was listening to a youTube archive from a EPT (European Poker Tour) stream of some tournament - IIRC it was in Andras' hometown - and he dropped in the commentator's booth to chat with James and Stapes. Really cool guy, he answered all their inane questions and stuff. It was such a random occurrence getting photographed and becoming a global meme, he described how it really changed his and his family's life.

Life sure can be strange heh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For someone apparently so good at seeing through BS, I'm surprised you took this bait so quickly. They sure got you hook, line and sinker. I think that's why people suspect your motives - you did

"Available" to 43K banks, not on-boarded banks yet, or even any mention of estimates of those intending to utilize it. A key question is that of the necessary software, what's involved in it's integra

New York-Tokyo distance is 10800Km. The light will take around 72ms to go back and forth and they can do bilateral agreements in only 50ms. They found something faster than light, it's groundbreaking

Posted Images

3 hours ago, richxrp said:

Here's my view on it .. 

RTGS is not new.. it has been greasing domestic payment rails for years. But they've now come up with a process which puts a settlement layer on top of the old correspondent banking system that ensures there is liquidity to fulfil remittances on either side of the border... and also with the intention of keeping the (banker's) gravy train running..

This is how I understand it works ... according to the video here at http://rtgs.global

Manufacturer in US at Bank A wants to pay Supplier in UK at Bank B

For simplicity let's assume exchange rate is 1:1 for USD and Pounds.

  1. Manufacturer/Teller logs into RTGS system with his Account at Bank A
  2. Manufacturer/Teller initiates payment of $100K Pounds to Bank B by filling in details and submits via RTGS portal
  3. RTGS checks that there are sufficient funds in Bank A's RTGS Settlement account for the required $100K USD and locks this amount at Bank A
  4. RTGS Looks into Bank B's RTGS Settlement Account and locks the corresponding $100K Pounds up in preparation for payment.
  5. Once RTGS confirms the funds exist on both sides, the portal requests authorization of the payment and terms from Manufacturer (Exchange Rate, Fees etc.)
  6. RTGS then unlocks the funds on both sides and switches ownership of the $100K USD RTGS funds held at Bank A to Bank B
  7. Bank B now having ownership of the $100K USD funds at Bank A, releases the $100K Pounds to the supplier's own bank account and Supplier walks away with $100K Pounds

At the end of all these steps:

  • Manufacturer's bank account decreases by $100K USD (not including fees/costs)
  • Bank B in the UK now owns $100K USD held in their own Bank Account at Bank A
  • Supplier's bank account increases by $100K Pounds.

Some Thoughts: 

  • It works because control of the remittance is performed within a single network (RTGS) that is aware of the funds available within each bank (as long as each bank participates in the same network). There is no need to pre-fund accounts .. i.e. no need for nostro/vostro because liquidity need only exist in the form of each bank's native currency at time of payment. 
  • There is no counter party risk (no Crypto or blockchain required) because funds are pre-confirmed on both sides before Supplier is paid - this is the atomicity property of the transaction
  • The bank to which money is being sent will wind up with as many foreign currency denominated accounts held at each correspondent bank as countries they do business with. They will need to convert these back to their own local currency in order to use for their local operational banking needs.
  • Because banks are still the middleman (no Market Makers required!) and the existing correspondent structure is preserved, this will not be a cheap solution for all consumers .. everyone up and down the line including RTGS needs to be paid .
  • Is this a real competitor for Ripple ? - Definitely Yes (Much better Solution than any of the other competitors that have come and gone since..)
  • People will probably not want to use this for low value transactions because of the relative cost.. Imagine sending $100 overseas with a $50 fee... that would not be very cost effective for the sender.
  • Is this a knockout punch for Ripple ?.. no not necessarily.. In the long run I believe Crypto will be here to stay (because of scarcity, accessibility and because of the endless expansion of FIAT currency). Also, I believe DeFi currently in it's infancy,  will eventually elevate and validate the need for digital assets.
  • With respect to cross border remittances I think Ripple Labs saw this coming.. and that was most likely the reason to pivot from  High Value/Low Volume Transactions to the Low Value/High Volume space. 
  • The only real impact I see is that this will kick the can further down the road and buy some time before the actual revolution happens..  .. but happen it will, because the current financial system is definitely not sustainable in the long run ... 

 

This rather reminds me of when everyone were wringing their hands over Facebook's Libra. 

My gut feeling is  that this is  a clever idea on paper that is not really thought through.  If there is an asymmetry between corridors, say between China and US, does the liquidity dry up very fast?   And anyway this is really only SWIFT Mk 2, and many banks will simply make do with the upgraded  SWIFT mark 1 that they know.  Is it really worth the hassle?  How easy will it be to make Mk 2 regulatory compliant?  I would think that would take years to set up, test and make reg compliant?

ODL is the elegant self governing blockchain solution that will run on the IoV.  Ripple have worked for years on testing and working on how to make ODL/XRP regulatory compliant.  Once sufficient corridors are open and liquidity starts to flow it will flow unimpeded  to where it is most needed.  The imbalances between countries' trade accounts are eventually worked through the system via valuation of XRP affecting flexible exchange ratees between fiat currencies.  ODL is a flexible solution, this RTGS looks to me like another fantasy. 

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

 

This rather reminds me of when everyone were wringing their hands over Facebook's Libra. 

My gut feeling is  that this is  a clever idea on paper that is not really thought through.  If there is an asymmetry between corridors, say between China and US, does the liquidity dry up very fast?   And anyway this is really only SWIFT Mk 2, and many banks will simply make do with the upgraded  SWIFT mark 1 that they know.  Is it really worth the hassle?  How easy will it be to make Mk 2 regulatory compliant?  I would think that would take years to set up, test and make reg compliant?

ODL is the elegant self governing blockchain solution that will run on the IoV.  Ripple have worked for years on testing and working on how to make ODL/XRP regulatory compliant.  Once sufficient corridors are open and liquidity starts to flow it will flow unimpeded  to where it is most needed.  The imbalances between countries' trade accounts are eventually worked through the system via valuation of XRP affecting flexible exchange ratees between fiat currencies.  ODL is a flexible solution, this RTGS looks to me like another fantasy. 

It's a clever idea because the banks do not want to use cryptocurrency. They will try to make this work as much as possible because it is in their interests plus it makes them look as if they are doing something to bring down the costs and friction. Why is the US SEC not giving clarity to cryptocurrencies and XRP in particular? Is it because they want to delay adoption so that more solutions like this can come through and stop the tide of something they cannot control - I think, within the government, it is more like keep the status quo for as long as they can because of ignorance of the potential and the threats from outside. The East will not wait for the USA to sort themselves out - they are eager to take the fight to the establishment and ODL is their opportunity to grow.  This is going to get increasing interesting 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mistatee2000 said:

It's a clever idea because the banks do not want to use cryptocurrency. They will try to make this work as much as possible because it is in their interests plus it makes them look as if they are doing something to bring down the costs and friction. Why is the US SEC not giving clarity to cryptocurrencies and XRP in particular? Is it because they want to delay adoption so that more solutions like this can come through and stop the tide of something they cannot control - I think, within the government, it is more like keep the status quo for as long as they can because of ignorance of the potential and the threats from outside. The East will not wait for the USA to sort themselves out - they are eager to take the fight to the establishment and ODL is their opportunity to grow.  This is going to get increasing interesting 

Absolutely, I think it was Galgitron who likened the SWIFT upgrades to strapping a jet engine on a donkey's back.  One blast of the engine and the donkey disintegrates.  This looks like more of the same.  

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

By pure random chance, I was listening to a youTube archive from a EPT (European Poker Tour) stream of some tournament - IIRC it was in Andras' hometown - and he dropped in the commentator's booth to chat with James and Stapes. Really cool guy, he answered all their inane questions and stuff. It was such a random occurrence getting photographed and becoming a global meme, he described how it really changed his and his family's life.

Life sure can be strange heh. 

I actually listened to that interview, it was pretty funny. He was all like “I never thought I’d end up being a meme”. Actually it wasn’t that interview, I think it was a TedX talk or something? He had a thick accent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Neurotoxin said:

I actually listened to that interview, it was pretty funny. He was all like “I never thought I’d end up being a meme”. Actually it wasn’t that interview, I think it was a TedX talk or something? He had a thick accent. 

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players". What a nice and sympathetic guy :-) 

Edited by jn_r
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LetHerRip said:

Of course there are points we don't know all the details to and could be potential red flags as you call them, but its not like Ripple solutions are without its very own multiple red flags also.

What we know is banks don't want to have to use a volatile digital asset created by a private company, they have said that again and again. There is now a solution that provides them this. Will they adopt it? who will win? Time will tell. Ripples first mover advantage is getting eroded fast though.

Will they adopt it? who will win? Time will tell. Ripples first mover advantage is getting eroded fast though.

Very true. If only your first few posts were more like this, and not mostly fud. With your first few posts you're guilty of the exact same thing you constantly accuse 'xrp cult' members of.  So very annoying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LetHerRip said:

Of course there are points we don't know all the details to and could be potential red flags as you call them, but its not like Ripple solutions are without its very own multiple red flags also.

What we know is banks don't want to have to use a volatile digital asset created by a private company, they have said that again and again. There is now a solution that provides them this. Will they adopt it? who will win? Time will tell. Ripples first mover advantage is getting eroded fast though.

And what are these 'multiple red flags', regarding Ripples solutions, that you claim?
It seems you ignored your alleged 'multiple red flags' and the doubts you obviously had about banks using xrp, and still invested in it, and now you have lost, being so narcissistic, you are incapable of taking responsibility for your own obvious stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, richxrp said:

 

  • It works because control of the remittance is performed within a single network (RTGS) that is aware of the funds available within each bank (as long as each bank participates in the same network). There is no need to pre-fund accounts .. i.e. no need for nostro/vostro because liquidity need only exist in the form of each bank's native currency at time of payment. 

From their (RTGS Global's) own video, they say "we put a liquidity lock on a new account called an RTGS account held at bank A" - notice it's not that they lock funds from a regular account - because they can't. We live in a world of fractional reserve banking where you can only guarantee a fraction of the funds in a bank at any given time (why bank runs are a bad thing).  In other words, yes - no need for nostro, but you do need an "RTGS account" with actual funds in it in order to guarantee funds.  When they say "lock funds", how would they actually lock funds unless it's within a proprietary network (i.e. each bank needs an "RTGS account")?  No way do RTGS Global have the magic pixie dust required to somehow lock funds from any bank account in the world.  It's just their sleight-of-hand marketing that makes us think they can. 

Some might argue "yeah, but a bank can move money to the RTGS account just before sending, so what's the big deal?".  True....but let's move onto the next salient point you raise to see the problems of these "new accounts" and being forced to hold currencies you don't want to:-

Quote

The bank to which money is being sent will wind up with as many foreign currency denominated accounts held at each correspondent bank as countries they do business with. They will need to convert these back to their own local currency in order to use for their local operational banking needs.

...as you say, for each atomic swap, there will be a party holding a currency they may (or probably, or maybe definitely!) want to convert back to their native currency.  In other words, they can be collecting all kinds of currencies in their "RTGS account" that looks very much like....a Nostro account.  That money isn't being invested or put to work.  It is just sitting there and accumulating as they use this new fangled RTGS global system.  They have to convert it back to their native currency. 

The sender doesn't have this problem with ODL.  It uses open markets to do the currency conversion for you - bank A sends $100 of USD to bank B, bank B gets $100 worth of MXN (native currency).  Bank A isn't stuck with a $100 worth of MXN you send in return. With RTGS Global, bank A has to go to the Forex markets to get these MXN converted to USD.  Factor in asymmetric corridors and with this RTGS Global system, you can find US banks stuffed full of MXN they don't really want to hold and have to go to Forex markets to convert to USD (think of the time and money expense of that). 

To sum up, the key question is: what is ODL trying to solve? It's trying to give everyone the currency they want in the first place, and is using open markets to do this.  RTGS Global is giving one party the currency they want, with the second party stuck with a currency they maybe/probably/definitely do no want, but they're stuck with facilitating that end of the bargain and so in sending the currency that another bank wants, it receives in return a currency it doesn't want.  UNLESS...RTGS Global works like a mini Forex market matching two parties that want each others' currencies in equal amounts at the same time...and then re-routing that money on local rails to the intended recipient.  However, it doesn't explain it like that.  It's a straight swap. 

 

 

Edited by 2ndtimearound
Link to post
Share on other sites

@LetHerRip will you be fixing your title now you know it is NOT rolling out to 43,000 banks?  (That number is merely the potential market for the product.)


I assume you believed it when you created it.  (Showing a fair bit of naivety,  but you’d already demonstrated that by buying high then screaming ‘liar’ at the man who ‘forced‘ you to buy.)

Or,  after all your strident moralising,  are you now ok with lies to XRP holders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several replies in this thread that properly identify how XRP/ODL might be a superior solution.  But there is a long history of the superior product/service not being the adopted product/service. It is true that banks want faster transactions, but I don't think they are willing to give up the status quo or take leaps of faith on a technology (cryptocurrency) that may be lost to history as a failed fad.

If you think that's ludicrous, do a simple search for "RTGS" in your favorite search engine.  You'll find numerous financial industry related sites, including banks, talking about it.  Now search "ODL"... nothing.  How about "Ripple ODL", "ODL XRP", "ODL remittances", "XRP remittances" ect..., you get hits, but they are almost exclusively crypto related sites, not financial, and definitely not banks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zerpple said:

If you think that's ludicrous, do a simple search for "RTGS" in your favorite search engine.  You'll find numerous financial industry related sites, including banks, talking about it.  Now search "ODL"... nothing.  How about "Ripple ODL", "ODL XRP", "ODL remittances", "XRP remittances" ect..., you get hits, but they are almost exclusively crypto related sites, not financial, and definitely not banks.

 

 

You have to remember that ODL is a nuanced, nascent, sleek, curvaceous, sensual, sexy and curvy beauty of a product... turn off parental controls and try again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Zerpple said:

There are several replies in this thread that properly identify how XRP/ODL might be a superior solution.  But there is a long history of the superior product/service not being the adopted product/service. It is true that banks want faster transactions, but I don't think they are willing to give up the status quo or take leaps of faith on a technology (cryptocurrency) that may be lost to history as a failed fad.

If you think that's ludicrous, do a simple search for "RTGS" in your favorite search engine.  You'll find numerous financial industry related sites, including banks, talking about it.  Now search "ODL"... nothing.  How about "Ripple ODL", "ODL XRP", "ODL remittances", "XRP remittances" ect..., you get hits, but they are almost exclusively crypto related sites, not financial, and definitely not banks.

 

 

Hmm not quite, it's a very good company name admittedly but "RTGS" *is* a banking acronym, namely "real time gross settlement" the company name is "RTGS Global" - find me banks talking specifically about that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • LetHerRip changed the title to Oh shiaatttt! RTGS Global + Microsoft Launch Cross-border Liquidity, available to 43,300 Banks (No Blockchain or XRP)

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...

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.