Ripple is in major trouble

[williamuk]

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

[kadscuk]

Last thing, as for banks using the quickest and easiest way, it would seem to me that the quickest and easiest way would be to bypass the liquidity issue altogether and peg cyber tokens (with no dollar value) to fiat. And then use that. Why does the cyber token need to have any money value whatsoever? Why does the XRP have to have any monetary value? It doesn't.

Banks can just as easily make their own tokens (with no dollar value) and peg that to fiat. Which is what groups like R3 could very easily do

I don't understand what you're suggesting. If the token has no dollar value, what purpose does it serve? Do you mean it merely keeps track of who owes what to whom? If so, how do you settle those debts?

And when you say "peg that to fiat", do you mean to have one such token for each fiat currency? If so, how do you provide cross-currency liquidity? Or do you mean to peg one token to more than one fiat currency? How do you do that?

I think what you might be missing is that the main issue is moving actual value between islands of liquidity. How would a valueless token move value between, say, Europe and India?

The kind of system you're talking about (if I understand you correctly) is great for domestic payments and very similar to what many countries currently use. It doesn't move value though, so it doesn't help much with the problem Ripple is targeting.

You would have one token only - say R3 token which has a fixed rate to each fiat currency.

Examples:

1 x R3 = $0.25
1 x R3 = £0.20

The same way that 1 x XRP currently equals $0.226

The difference though is that R3 isnt a sellable token on any open market exchange or outside a banking system. Its purely an agreement between the banks to keep track of who is sending what and who is receiving what.

Nobody has to "pay" anything to buy the token itself, yet it can still transfer liquidity across "islands"

There would be "value" for lack of a better word in the token because it's pegged to a fiat amount, but its not sellable outside its immediate function.

This is the ideal way to save banks money, plus reduces volatility by stopping outsiders manipulating the price/supply etc.

Why the bank should have to pay for a token that the bank itself has made doesn't make sense. If the banks all agree to use a middle token then that will be that...no money has to be involved in "buying" the token.

What ripple is doing with XRP is selling an open market token to the banks..but the banks dont need to use an open market one...surely they can use a closed-doors one? Why does the token that banks use have to be open market?

Which is where stuff like R3 and ripple being open source (+ other techs) makes the xrp offer less attractive

[JoelKatz]

You would have one token only - say R3 token which has a fixed rate to each fiat currency.

Examples:

1 x R3 = $0.25
1 x R3 = £0.20

The same way that 1 x XRP currently equals $0.226

That's not possible. The various international currencies change value with respect to each other. While these changes are typically small, so are the costs and profits associated with payments.

The difference though is that R3 isnt a sellable token on any open market exchange or outside a banking system. Its purely an agreement between the banks to keep track of who is sending what and who is receiving what.

They already have this. They just do it for every fiat currency. The problem is that it doesn't actually move value. So it requires a separation between payment and settlement. The problem we're solving is the actual movement of value.

What ripple is doing with XRP is selling an open market token to the banks..but the banks dont need to use an open market one...surely they can use a closed-doors one? Why does the token that banks use have to be open market?

Because only a token that can be bought and sold has actual value and therefore can serve as an actual means of settlement. Imagine, for example, a European banking hub that needs to settle with an Indian banking hub. Market makers in India might well be willing to swap Rupees for XRP if they can use those Rupees to pick up Euros for cheap or use them to fund their own extraterritorial payments.

For sure banks will do these kinds of things, but I think XRP is well-positioned to compete with them. In particular, XRP is well-positioned to bridge these jurisdiction-specific and currency-specific domestic payment schemes.

[kadscuk]

That's not possible. The various international currencies change value with respect to each other. While these changes are typically small, so are the costs and profits associated with payments.

Yes of course I mean the numbers will change with respect to each other

E.g today they may be:

1 x R3 = $0.25
1 X R3 = £0.20

Tomorrow they might be:

1 X R3 = $0.21
1 X R3 = £0.22

They already have this. They just do it for every fiat currency. The problem is that it doesn't actually move value. So it requires a separation between payment and settlement. The problem we're solving is the actual movement of value.

When it comes to fiat, value isn't a real physical thing. Its just an arbitrary concept based on what people believe is true. It is based on consensus and expectations. Perhaps a better definition of what you mean by value might help, because value isnt this concrete thing you're saying.

To move so called "value", all you have to do is put a minus on the sending side and a plus on the receiving side..that's all there is to it.

If I want to send $10k from India to USA, its a 10k debit in India and a 10k credit in USA.

However you want to track that (using a token) doesnt mean you have to buy the token as well in order to "settle"

Because only a token that can be bought and sold has actual value and therefore can serve as an actual means of settlement. Imagine, for example, a European banking hub that needs to settle with an Indian banking hub. Market makers in India might well be willing to swap Rupees for XRP if they can use those Rupees to pick up Euros for cheap or use them to fund their own extraterritorial payments.

I think there might be confusion as to what we mean by value. Value is based on consensus and expectations and isnt fixed in stone. Especially when it comes to fiat. If all global banks make an agreement that they will use R3 token (pegged at whatever rate, which varies as mentioned above), then that serves as the means of settlement as well.

I could use R3 token to do the same thing as what you propose, without their being any sellable value of itself, outside its immediate function of tracking who is owed what

For sure banks will do these kinds of things, but I think XRP is well-positioned to compete with them. In particular, XRP is well-positioned to bridge these jurisdiction-specific and currency-specific domestic payment schemes.

I see...it may come down to the way the proposition is positioned at the end of the day. Because positioning is of course important. I dont see banks being dumb though and if they have an R3 option sitting there (where they dont have to pay to buy the token, and there is no volatility from open market prices) then that can change things and compete with XRP effectively

[JShade5]

For a coin you guys really want to see bubble, it's very resilient 

[JoelKatz]

To move so called "value", all you have to do is put a minus on the sending side and a plus on the receiving side..that's all there is to it.

No, that doesn't work. Eventually you wind up with a big positive number on one side and a big negative number someplace else. Then the guy with the big positive number needs to wire out money on a domestic payment system or some other rail, and he doesn't have any money in that other payment system.

If I want to send $10k from India to USA, its a 10k debit in India and a 10k credit in USA.

However you want to track that (using a token) doesnt mean you have to buy the token as well in order to "settle"

That doesn't actually settle. It just tracks debt. The entity that owes the money eventually has to settle the debt with some movement of actual value.

I could use R3 token to do the same thing as what you propose, without their being any sellable value of itself, outside its immediate function of tracking who is owed what

I don't see how that would work. Say I'm the only bank in the US that uses the R3 token. I have a billion of the R3 token with a value of one billion dollars US. Now one of my customers wants to make an ACH payment. What do I do?

Or say the US payment hub has way more R3 tokens than the Japan payment hub. Now what happens when people in the US payment hub want to move their dollars out of the payment hub? Where does it get the dollars from to cover?

You can use this as a single-currency payment system and as a way to net out opposite flows. But it still leaves you with a settlement problem. The case for a crypto-currency for global settlement is very strong. Of course, what fraction of that market XRP will be able to get is an open question, and it's Ripple's (the company) major focus.

[Spoetnik]

I see far too many problems with Ripple.

For one thing they want XRP to work with "Big Banks"
But i have said all along they won't be buying XRP premined coins.
In an unregulated scam coin scene.

As much as projects like Ripple want to exclude themselves from the scene.. they can't.
It's still a fucking Altcoin !
A shady ass sketchy premined / ICO bullshit one to boot !

Are banks willing to integrate into a coin system that is unregulated ?
Nope.
This screams risk to them.

Let me put it this way.. during the housing market crash there was bail-out's.
Who is going to bail-out Ripple if it's needed one day ?
You think trillions will flow from the US govt to Ripple inc's scammy inept hands ?
And if it's not possible to bail them out ...then it's a risk.
A financial risk for banks.

Why do they need to buy XRP from bag holders ?
When they have so many other options available.
Are you guys forgetting what is already setup + being used right now ?

How is some crypto premined / centralized shit going to beat Interact eTransfer for example ?
I can send someone money ultra fast.. almost instantly.
It costs 50 cents and then i click a link in my email.. done.

Jeez Joel put the Kool-Aid down and get some fresh air.. you are brain washed !
The rest of the morons here are stupid dreamers.. naive to the reality of it all.

[PoorAudiophile]

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

I'm also new to this forum.

I find a lot of sense to your question, it seems nobody has an answer.

[blacque]

Ripple is, as Ripple themselves happily state, a solution for banks to exchange things with each other. 
Bravo.
Problem is, in the 21st century, seven billion humans are now starting to realise that we can exchange value (in other words, socially-agreed-to consensus, much like a US Dollar exemplifies) and trade with each other directly, peer to peer, without needing a bank or government in the middle.
Ripple hoping to fuel the continued health of the historic banking model into the 21st century is like a grower of hay hoping to fuel the horse industry after Henry Ford starts selling the Model T Ford.
Email killed stamps and envelopes and the postal authority.  Blockchain crypto currencies will kill banks.
Ripple's destiny is pinned to banks.
Does Ripple have an assured future?
Twenty, forty, fifty years from now, humans will send cryptocoins to each other over a blockchain as our way of keeping track of whom deserves what.
Why do I need a bank for that?

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

I'm also new to this forum.

I find a lot of sense to your question, it seems nobody has an answer.

Same, same, but different.
Ethereum is a full blockchain.  It is an immutable historical record in that it is a chain of linked (inter-dependent) proofs (mathematical calculations in the form of hashes) that cannot be easily undone (spoofed, impersonated, recalculated in a corrupt way).  Each current change in our balances (e.g. you send coins to me) requires a transaction that then is evidenced (the nodes reach consensus again) after a bunch of hashing calc's are performed by nodes so as to agree to a proposed update to this inter-linked historic chain of crypto calc's.  The participating nodes constantly re-compute this blockchain so as to arrive at certainty that they can 'more safely' agree to a new consensus about this chain, and this forms then the new consensus that you rely on when you look there.  The trust is because of the amount of maths performed by the peer nodes.
Ripple is a consensus ledger.  It updates an ongoing ledger of any changes, e.g. add some coins to my account entry, subtract some from yours.  There is no blockchain with crypto calculated proofs chained to each other in intricate crypto fashion that requires huge amounts of mathematics to compute from scratch.  Instead, in Ripple the maths and CPU cycles are used for the work of just updating that shared ledger (recalculating this consensus ledger as each change happens to this central ledger, when you send coins to me).  In Ripple you are invited to trust the latest ledger you are offered, there wasn't a huge bunch of block hashing crypto calc's performed (as per the blockchain, ethereum, bitcoin model) that you can now derive a sense of safety from.
At a practical level, in Ripple you as a peer client don't need to download a blockchain if you want to verify the proof of a historic or recent transaction;  instead you trust that the current round of consensus calc's (the current ledger) is a correct up-to-date reflection that has the correct current account balances for us all.  In Ethereum you can inspect/re-verify  (re-calculate for yourself, from scratch) the whole chain for any transaction anytime you need to.
<just my niave understanding, I am not a crypto expert>

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

I'm also new to this forum.

I find a lot of sense to your question, it seems nobody has an answer.

The question you may have also been asking is, why do banks seem to like Ripple more than, say, bitcoin or ethereum?
Given the way that Ripple is just a constantly updated consensus ledger, this echoes the way that banks work internally:  banks don't care where each dollar bill came into existence in the distant past (was this stash of dollar bills once used in a cocaine deal?  Was this stack of bills used in human slave trafficking?  Did this stash of bills come from Bernie Madoff?), banks only want to know the current state of the ledger.  So a blockchain is, potentially, an embarrrassment to a bank:  ideally they don't want for you to be able to self-calculate from their blockchain where all those dollar bills came from.
The pernicious side of me also suspects that banks want the ability to manipuate the consensus ledger 'after-the-fact', should the heat get too strong again, one day in the future:  "explain to me, all you banks, how you managed to lose all our money, again, a la GFC?  Show me your historic blockchain ledger so I can self-calculate where you sent all those funds....."

[kadscuk]

To move so called "value", all you have to do is put a minus on the sending side and a plus on the receiving side..that's all there is to it.

No, that doesn't work. Eventually you wind up with a big positive number on one side and a big negative number someplace else. Then the guy with the big positive number needs to wire out money on a domestic payment system or some other rail, and he doesn't have any money in that other payment system.

If I want to send $10k from India to USA, its a 10k debit in India and a 10k credit in USA.

However you want to track that (using a token) doesnt mean you have to buy the token as well in order to "settle"

That doesn't actually settle. It just tracks debt. The entity that owes the money eventually has to settle the debt with some movement of actual value.

I could use R3 token to do the same thing as what you propose, without their being any sellable value of itself, outside its immediate function of tracking who is owed what

I don't see how that would work. Say I'm the only bank in the US that uses the R3 token. I have a billion of the R3 token with a value of one billion dollars US. Now one of my customers wants to make an ACH payment. What do I do?

Or say the US payment hub has way more R3 tokens than the Japan payment hub. Now what happens when people in the US payment hub want to move their dollars out of the payment hub? Where does it get the dollars from to cover?

You can use this as a single-currency payment system and as a way to net out opposite flows. But it still leaves you with a settlement problem. The case for a crypto-currency for global settlement is very strong. Of course, what fraction of that market XRP will be able to get is an open question, and it's Ripple's (the company) major focus.

This is quite an interesting reply so thanks for this and taking the time to answer......

Settlement then appears to be a complex thing, because the whole financial system is complex and not as simple as it sounds...settlement also appears then to be a mathematical issue

So what you're saying is using an R3 token with different links to fiat doesnt actually work because there's still a settlement issue, and a liquidity issue, based on the way the mathematics of the transactions work. If I transferred dollars out on a valueless token, it creates a minus on one side which still needs to be filled with something.

Banks using their own token across different fiat pairs (and multiple tokens for different fiat pairs) would also actually take more liquidity than just using an XRP token for all fiat pairs, which has (or will have) the necessary liquidity already, to actually transfer "real value" in terms of being able to fill the void when a minus or plus is created on either side of a transaction

I think if what you're saying is right, it means even if banks used their own R3 token, it would only work if it had enough liquidity and enough people were on board. And by that, I mean not just banks on board, but other financial institutions, intermedaries etc

So, that would tell me that XRP is still alive..unless im missing something

I agree that banks might not jump into XRP without regulation of the whole industry...all exchanges that trade XRP will have to be regulated etc

[AztecGoldHero]

ı thınk rıpple ıs one of the bıggest scam. that prıze manupılatıon ıs not normal. some guys earnıng mıllıons of dolar from rıpple and may be bıllıons of dolar. they are tellıng banks wıll use rıpple . banks can use only tech of rıpple not the coın. they dont want that kınd of prıze manupulatıon they dont want to send money by rıpple. ımagıne bank ıs sendıng 1000 dolar as 100000 rıpple after translactıon ıt becomes 500 dolar because of market

[g___]

ı thınk rıpple ıs one of the bıggest scam. that prıze manupılatıon ıs not normal. some guys earnıng mıllıons of dolar from rıpple and may be bıllıons of dolar.

as opposed to... ? you also described bitcoin.

what price manipulation? are you referring to the rise/falls of the market which you might perceive to be "drastic"? any/every market in this world is also manipulated to some degree. ripple is doing everything within compliance to the industry they're working with (finance). your problem is comparing them to something that is entirely different. markets are rigged, not necessarily the company themselves (in this case). i say this because you don't understand how much compliance is needed within finance. to say they're a scam, is to overlook every rule they need to follow to even operate as a company. do you think they'd have partnerships/customers they have if they were a "scam"? please jump off your crypto high horse and GTFO ➡️

[Pfizer]

Its market capitalizatio is to be altered... supply is unknown, how much of it hold by who is unknown...

does not even worth 1 billion dollars.

[ðºÞæ]

Many of the "available" coins are looked by contractual agreement (given free to Banks and partners)

[JoelKatz]

Ripple is, as Ripple themselves happily state, a solution for banks to exchange things with each other.

To be clear, that is the use case that Ripple, the company, is currently pursuing.

Problem is, in the 21st century, seven billion humans are now starting to realise that we can exchange value (in other words, socially-agreed-to consensus, much like a US Dollar exemplifies) and trade with each other directly, peer to peer, without needing a bank or government in the middle.

Exactly! And to get to that great future, we need a phenomenal bridge between where the money is now and where the money will be in the future.

Ripple hoping to fuel the continued health of the historic banking model into the 21st century is like a grower of hay hoping to fuel the horse industry after Henry Ford starts selling the Model T Ford.

Right. The horse industry could have pivoted to survive in an automobile-based world. You can sort of argue that they did. Similarly, music companies could have reigned in a digital music world, they just didn't. It's certainly possibly that banks will die as the economy changes with new technology. But the smart ones will try to hold on as long as they can by improving services and cutting costs. It's certainly way too early to say that there's no business model around modernizing banks. They're handling trillions of dollars worth of payments today and right now that's still increasing. We can certainly pivot again in the future.

Email killed stamps and envelopes and the postal authority.  Blockchain crypto currencies will kill banks.
Ripple's destiny is pinned to banks.

Today, yes, because we think that's the best use case to target today. After all, banks have lots of money and handle trillions of dollars worth of payments.

Does Ripple have an assured future?
Twenty, forty, fifty years from now, humans will send cryptocoins to each other over a blockchain as our way of keeping track of whom deserves what.
Why do I need a bank for that?

And Ripple will have nothing to do with banks in that future. You don't turn the wheel of your car because there's a curve 30 miles ahead. We're quite agile, we've pivoted before, we're aimed at where the money is now, and in twenty years, we can pivot again. Of course we don't have an assured future. But we'll do our best to keep aiming at the best targets.

There are really a few pieces here:

1) There's ILP. We hope that will provide the bridge between different ledgers that record value. Those ledgers can be traditional banking ledgers, they can be decentralized public ledgers, ILP doesn't care. This is what avoids us all having to transact on the same system.

2) There's XRP and its ledger. This is a system that permits pseudonymous transaction in a native asset. It doesn't have bitcoin's liquidity or value yet, but it does have support for higher transaction volume, faster confirmation, and better security. We've worked to make XRP integrate with ILP extremely well through native support for escrow and payment channels.

3) There's Ripple's business improving bank's payment systems. We're getting our software into the transaction flow of banks. This software supports moving the underlying value using ILP.

Given those three pieces, our strategy is to work to get some of those bank payments bridged through XRP. If we succeed, but banks become less relevant, then the endpoints will just change from bank ledgers to non-bank ledgers.

We're in the very early days. During the early days of the Internet, much of the work was done by the government. And much of what attracted people to the Internet in the beginning was its connectivity to existing media companies. The important thing is what you're building and what properties it has. Yes, in the early days, the key users will be the same as the key users of the previous technology. But if the new system is inherently accessible to all and fundamentally based on open standards, the world can change for the better.

[Spoetnik]

So.. why did it necessitate premining the coins ?

How is it that Ripple inc is going to beat any and all other solutions possible for banks ?
What is the big advantage to Ripple and the premined coins ?

I recall "big news" with Ethereum way back.. supposedly IBM was "using" Ethereum.
They would not shut the fuck up about it on Poloniex troll-boxs so i asked some questions.
Immediately i was rampaged on and insulted with mod's jumping in having a jab at me.
Eventually banned for "FUD" of course.

So..

I asked.
I said to the lead spamming shill-tard, so are the coins connected to the coins on Poloniex ?
He said no.
He said it was an internal network experiment they were running privately.
So i said.. oh really then ?
Well then.. what good is it spamming that news on the troll box in a deceptive manner then ?
Mods then jumped on me hard and random guys started insulting me.
Scammy deceitful lies posted to lure in idiots sanctioned by Polo staff.

Then *again.. i told the staffers at Polo they were simply grooming their victims.
And never get in the middle of a predator and the victims he is grooming.  
They don't like that one bit !

Fast forward a little while and i noticed they simply stopped all chatter about IBM.
So i asked and said uhhh.. WTF ? why did you guys stop mentioning it ? What happened ?
I was told by the same shill-tard's whom i suspected where hired by the Ethereum team to spam..
That IBM had discontinued their private experiment and had chosen to create their own system.

Now boys & girls do you understand why i just brought that up in relation to this topic ?

Oh and if you don't believe me the data should have all been logged in Polonibox.com.

Anyway.. i am curious.
Joel how many XRP coins did the company give you ?
How much are they paying you ?
It says in your SIG you are an employee. (not a volunteer)
So i can't imagine you would come here to admit there is problems with XRP and still expect to keep getting Ripple inc pay checks.

Oh and i wonder if you get more than Ripple spent on paid votes at Cryptsy to get added.
I watched as XRP sat on the TOP of the voting list all a long since it was created.
And i recall early on Cryptsy-staff didn't like Ripple (no one did) because of it's scammy premine and hand out's to friends with fancy corporate titles etc.

So.. it sat on the voting list for a year or something while Ripple inc poured sickening amounts of BTC on the Exchange to get XRP added.
They had more votes then all the other dev's buying votes in the entire 100+ coin list combined.

..yet they had a 418 page coin topic giveaway where no one was getting their coins.

[Sukrim]

..yet they had a 418 page coin topic giveaway where no one was getting their coins.

This is a plain lie and easy to disprove. Look up addresses in that topic, if the forum accounts fulfilled the criterias outlined in the beginning, they got a few thousand XRP. You also tried to get some, but didn't fulfill the criteria and have cried foul ever since.

[asepticskeptic]

I remember the giveaway. At one point they were giving out 1m coins to anyone who had a forum account. Imagine having that amount of coins now.

[Sukrim]

I remember the giveaway. At one point they were giving out 1m coins to anyone who had a forum account. Imagine having that amount of coins now.

No, they were not. It used to be a few thousand coins, not 1 million.

[Spoetnik]

..yet they had a 418 page coin topic giveaway where no one was getting their coins.

This is a plain lie and easy to disprove. Look up addresses in that topic, if the forum accounts fulfilled the criterias outlined in the beginning, they got a few thousand XRP. You also tried to get some, but didn't fulfill the criteria and have cried foul ever since.

Home in in the entire giant rant i posted cut all of it away then focus like a laser beam on *SOME* users got paid ......late.

TA DA !

Ripple vindicated.  

Uhhhmm no.

..sorry fraud's and your fraud puppets the great giveaway was not a success.
It was the start of grand Ripple debacles.
SHIT LOADS of complaints are logged.. so there is no "lies".

Ripple has had lots of drama and they always come out trying to spin it all.
Such as FiNCEN fining them.
How many other coins in history went through that again ?

0.


I also forgot the amount but i don't think it way very many coins at all.
I recall 10 coins but that may be totally wrong though.

Joel also previously pointed out how i posted the wrong address in here.
Not sure how i did but the post i created i guess can't lie (my old post in the giveaway topic)
Not *ALL* of us posted the wrong address though.

My point was they were more than happy to leave the topic open knowing damn well people would still keep trying long after they silently (with out telling anyone) ended the giveaway.

Each person that did that went to Ripple.com and signed up using an email and then created an address.
So duh.. you think they wanted to stop that ?
Of course they let the public think the giveaway was still running long after they stopped PAYING out !

It was in fact a publicity stunt.
Not an act of altruism by a company.

PS:
I don't want the coins either so don't bother offering people.
I refuse to ever posses any Ripple coins.
Never had any and never will !