As a universal currency XRP would be expected to be a stable store of value (if broadly adopted) because it would be sheltered from inflationary and deflationary fluctuations of fiat currency.
Ether and XRP can coexist in Eastern and Western markets without severely threatening the value of the other because they have very different use cases.
I'm not sure I understand your premise here. Anyone care to elaborate on the "price stability" mechanism in XRP?
Also - not sure that Ethereum is limited to contracts only. The only reason it can't be used as Cash is that it doesn't have a widespread Dapp to handle that. Nothing stopping Ether from being used as cash.
I would stable like the US dollar is "stable". Every currency is liquid with the US dollar so it's in constant demand which keeps is value afloat. If XRP gain significant liquidity with all fiat currencies and the protocol is broadly adopted by banks then it will be subject to the same upward pressure.
Yes, Ethereum COULD function like cash but (1) what would be the value proposition for a company to accept Ether over cash or fiat? and (2) this assumes that Ethereum is broadly adopted. To address 1, we can look at bitcoin. Bitcoin detractors have asked "how is there any logical reason for anybody to take dollars to buy bitcoins to pay for things priced in dollars? It adds no value and, in fact, creates extra expense." I agree. The same could be said of Ethereum as cash. The companies that "accept" bitcoin don't really accept bitcoin, they accept fiat payments from companies that process bitcoin from customers. To address 2, I think we have to play the odds. It's still very inchoate. It's a nascent technology that requires that developers learn a new language (hence Lisk.io...). Because it's not really being used out in the wild for commercial purposes, like once was the case with Bitcoin, we have no idea what its major weaknesses are. My guess is that Ethereum will be VERY good for some use cases and not so good for others. Where Ethereum fails other smart contract platforms will emerge to fill the gap. which will limit it's ubiquity and limit the utility of Ether as a cash-like token.
Ripple is laser-focused on one use case and the banks are already telling us they like it. It's VERY unlikely that all banks adopt Ripple so isn't it subject to the same market limitations that Ethereum is? Yes and no. Ripple is gambling on adoption of it's interledger technology to connect disparate ledgers and allow for cross-ledger payments and settlement. For example, if agent A is on HyperLedger and agent B is on Ripple, they can transact with each other via the interleger protocol (ILP). ILP therefore increases the liquidity of the assets on the Ripple Network (XRP) by connecting them to assets on any other ledger. So, someone on hyperledger could buy Ether on Ethereum via ILP with the payment routed through XRP. This is a longshot, but I like that they're thinking about it and the Fed is evaluating their technology...
https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/faster-payments/task-force/showcase/Bitcoin detractor:
http://thefinanser.com/2015/05/the-finanser-interviews-jeffrey-robinson-author-of-bitcon-the-naked-truth-about-bitcoin.html/Very good points. Intelligent
(Hard to believe I'm still on bitcointalk)I agree with the "stable" paragraph. Was actually my thought as well. My interpretation of the path that gets us here is that they are intentionally making it hard to trade/keep, and most of the big "block buyers" of XRP will be bankers buying XRP as discount rates. But there will be an inevitable "trade effect" as people rush in, then a steady climb, then a leveling off as it is established as an "official currency of value", and then basic market forces similar to current currency trading will take over.
I still disagree with the Ethereum will not be cash, although I may be misunderstanding some aspect. Ether will fuel the eventual smart contracts, but I see it as possible that they are the currency of the contracts as well. Currency is currency, whether it is smart contract related or not. If it has value, then why would it be limited to a small sector of the bigger financial ecosphere? I mean - there is NOTHING that precludes it being assigned a value, and spend/traded. I do understand the infinitely increasing supply plays a factor, but some of that dies due to attrition, and economic expansion over time can also address that issue.
< and while I was driving from point A to B today, it seems I missed the "news" and Ether is again on a mini rocket trip >I like the Fed link. The direct link to the Ripple submission is here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71ZGaBK5sgI totally disagree with most of the Bitcoin detractor link. I think it is dated, and it is biased, and the author is looking at it from a limited perspective. That is NOT to say that Bitcoin might still die. But I also think it is possible it still even becomes the primary currency. OMG I hate Blockstream more than hell. But if they manage to get Lightening working, and if Tech Titans like Google and Apple lock up huge App based sidechains - then it could change the game overnight. But I don't know that this would preclude an Ethereum Smart Contracts level in the financial ecosystem that would evolve, nor a Ripple level in the bank portion.
And I still think people are overlooking the potential power shift going on. I actually think
"Bank Giants" may be phased downward in power and importance and functionality by
"Tech Giants". People think the Banks will win because the governments will back them because of course they are the money, and the tax base.
But what happens if they are displaced by Tech Giant based Banks? I mean - tech can take the personal aspect out of banking, and simplify it, even make loans cheaper, verification of income & assets quicker, risk analysis more sound, money transfers quicker/cheaper, tax accounting more efficient and automated.
People are missing an even bigger trend I think. It may not be a question of whether banks maintain control via a "fedcoin". It may be.... do they survive in their current form at all?
Banks are looking at XRP, Ethereum, Bitcoin as tools they can wield and control, that can help them save money, replace people with technology, etc. But I see the probability that these very technologies may just make banks
(in their current form) obsolete.
And again, oddly... ether is going UP! And I still am comfortable with my HODL position in XRP/Ripple
(still going nowhere at present). What the heck. I made a lot of money today. No need to get greedy and have to make it all. I feel balanced, and that counts for something.
