Jump to content
Vertigo2131

Valuation Models - XRP The Digital Currency Vs. Ripple the Company

Recommended Posts

@joelkatz

Firstly thanks for your very frank and timely response - appreciated by all I am sure.

can I ask? you mention three demos: " XRP to ETH using ILP, Banking payments using XRP/paychan under ILP, and a demo of a future vision of a micropayment system over ILP" - how many of these actually got demo's at consensus? Like many of us, I was watching (at work) on a mobile so a lot of it was missed.... I think the first talk demo'd the micropayment system did it not?

Please excuse my total ignorance on this but the community are keen to have some clarity as to whether anything is likely to be demo'd or announced at upcoming conferences (e.g Toronto?)

Cheers and thanks, as ever,....

C

Share this post


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

Originally, we were going to have three demos at consensus. XRP to ETH using ILP, Banking payments using XRP/paychan under ILP, and a demo of a future vision of a micropayment system over ILP.



A couple of video demos of these would still be quite nice for people to see  I think.

And that's fine, we completely understand that things change, and it was probably the better strategy in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JoelKatz said:

I am sorry that wound up misleading people. Let me explain what happened:

Originally, we were going to have three demos at consensus. XRP to ETH using ILP, Banking payments using XRP/paychan under ILP, and a demo of a future vision of a micropayment system over ILP.

We were also going to do several corporation partnership/strategy announcements, including the lockup and the new exchanges and so on at consensus.

It reached the point where there just weren't slots for all the demos or time to do the releases. And it wouldn't have given people time to track us down to discuss new partnerships and so on if those announcements motivated them to talk to us. Also, we expected everyone else to announce at consensus, so we might have gotten lost in the noise.

So the strategy changed. We announced more things before consensus and at some point, we just decided to announce pretty much everything before consensus to go in consensus on a high with everyone already wanting to talk to us about what we were doing.

The strategy, I think, worked well. We did enter consensus with a high level of excitement. Lots of people wanted to work for us, and we had lots of high-level talks with all kinds of people. We had lots of companies offer to run validators in lots of jurisdictions. It was awesome.

But the downside was that we didn't announce very much new at consensus, though that was the original plan.

Again, I apologize for misleading people. That was totally my fault. I was really excited about we had coming and really couldn't resist sharing my enthusiasm. I'd say I'll be more careful in the future, but I think that would be kind of a sad thing. Know that I will always try to be completely honest and say only what I genuinely believe but that sometimes things will change and that is beyond my control.

Misunderstandings, yes, and a bit of miscalculations.

With all the focus on Consensus at least one "official" statement about what's in progress would certainly have been welcomed.

But sure especially your CEO was overly busy, planning for the next announcements, and boy I hope they come soon.

Thanks for a great event, loved Ripple's confident presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JoelKatz said:

We announced more things before consensus and at some point, we just decided to announce pretty much everything before consensus

Thank you for your explanation. That was a bit nerveous time for some of us (including me). So, I think all announcements can be found in Ripple's twitter - like a week before Consensus.
But if Ripple already have changed the "strategy" a week ago, why were you still so excited in the zerpbox just couple days before Consensus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JoelKatz said:

Here's how I've been explaining it recently:

1) There's a business that Ripple has providing transaction processing software to banks. It can work without XRP and without any blockchain tech. It improves international payments because it uses end to end messaging to track payment progress, ensure all necessary compliance information is in the transaction in the first place, precisely knows the fees ahead of time, and provides prompt, reliable confirmation of delivery. This is a big enough improvement that banks will use it even if the actual money moves the same way it does now.

2) Ripple has built a public blockchain with a native asset. It has various nice features -- a distributed exchange, good governance, fast transactions, high transaction volume, native multisign, key rotation, payment channels, and so on.

3) The hard part about getting banks to use a blockchain isn't the blockchain, it's everything else. It's governance, compliance, integration with banking systems, and so on. our software does all that stuff, so if routing a payment through XRP is a penny cheaper, the bank can take it. Then we have to make XRP cheaper somewhere that matters.

4) We don't target the biggest corridors like USD->EUR because they're efficient. We target an inefficient, but fairly high volume, corridor. For example, EUR->INR. Market makers have very small profit margins, so even a small incentive to place good EUR<->XRP and XRP<->INR offers can beat what banks are getting now through the correspondent banking system.

5) Once we get one corridor, we hang other countries off each end of the corridor, expanding the reach of XRP.

6) Now, say you're a company like Seagate that pays out money all over the globe. If you have to make payments to five countries in our corridors, you'd rather hold one pile of XRP than five piles of different currencies. That increases demand.

7) Now, say you're a company like Apple with a huge pile of cash. If you want to snap up other assets cheap, you'll need to hold the asset the people selling want. If they're going into any of our corridors, they'll want XRP, so you would want to hold it.

8) If that succeeds, it should massively increase the price of XRP.

9) Ripple holds a huge pile of XRP and will be the dominant XRP holder for the foreseeable future. But we're primarily VC financed and we get revenue from selling software to banks. We don't use our XRP as a bank account but as a strategic weapon. (Though we do sell some for revenue, we just don't need to for salaries or to keep the lights on.)

10) Anyone who gets XRP from us as part of some deal with a lockup has their incentives aligned with ours. They want the long-term price of XRP to go up too.

I think that pretty much covers our vision. There is, of course, no guarantee of success. This is a pretty crazy thing we're trying to do. But we have 160 full time employees and have raised tens of millions of dollars. We've hired many amazing people, and our track record speaks for itself.

Good morning, I like number 7 best, it really says that there's an brilliant opportunity for Ripple to develop in ways I'd never thought of before. 

Share this post


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

You guys have access to over 25 different banks. Lets take 25 different ledgers (Using ILP) and transfer 25 different crypto currencies (if possible) as well as 25 Fiat currencies and prepare transfer them back and forth. Then, prepare the same set up using BTC. Set both of them up so that people can see the transferring in real-time and start them both in 3....2....1...GO!

Good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CurrencyGuy said:

Good idea.

After THAT demonstration, we could then increase the demand on the system, scaling XRP to the throughput of VISA, while simultaneously increasing demand on the BTC equivalent to the demand of XRP.

This would show the scalability issue as being taken care of: XRP can scale to suit the demand, while BTC will backlog the transactions just to get to it when it gets to it.

THEN use the Escrow feature in conjunction with a smart contract that puts the remainder of the FIAT/Digital Assets into a lock-up, releasing those funds only after BTC finishes their 25 rounds :)

Is this a bad idea? Or is it just crazy and pointless?

 

Could be pointless.

Share this post


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

9) Ripple holds a huge pile of XRP and will be the dominant XRP holder for the foreseeable future. But we're primarily VC financed and we get revenue from selling software to banks. We don't use our XRP as a bank account but as a strategic weapon. (Though we do sell some for revenue, we just don't need to for salaries or to keep the lights on.)

10) Anyone who gets XRP from us as part of some deal with a lockup has their incentives aligned with ours. They want the long-term price of XRP to go up too.

Literally every time JoelKatz posts, I want go buy yet MORE XRP!  :yes3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...