Ripple is a great technology, but could you explain what makes XRP currency valuable? As I understand, it's needed only for exchanging exotic pairs of currencies for which there is no direct market. Any reason for someone to have a large reserve of XRP other than speculation?

What would be a reasonable market cap for XRP in your opinion if Ripple protocol gets a wide adoption?

Quote from: alexkravets on December 20, 2014, 01:03:05 am

Fidor bank transaction just hit Ripple ledger and funds were transferred from Germany to a US recipient.

https://xrptalk.org/topic/3781-fidor-bank-testing-the-auslands%C3%BCberweisung-%C3%BCber-ripple/page-4

Transaction details are here

http://ripplebot.com/4F88B09740DC70A8CA7658ADD183903D47BC1A503273A9899BB216AA229BDA11/


Gentlemen,

Today December 19th, 2014 is the birthday of the new global Monetary / Settlement system.


P.S. This is a calendar of upcoming Ripple events https://ripple.com/events/

This thing is going mainstream .... fast

Here in the following thread this was discussed...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11636.msg155639#msg155639

Quote from: kisa on December 19, 2014, 02:51:32 pm

Quote from: clout on December 19, 2014, 01:48:48 pm

Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:08:26 pm

Quote

BitUSD as currency

The argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.

I don't think you can actually argue that bitUSD is a CFD. It is not a contract between buyer and seller and there is no date of settlement. It is not a derivative but rather it is its own asset just like BTS or BTC.

If anything, viewed from the U.S., bitUSD can be called CFND = Contract For No Difference...

I'd say BitUSD is a contract for difference but it is settled in BTS not in USD. Actually it is not really settled in BTS. Settling happens only virtually as the exchange rate of BTS and USD varies and BitUSD holders are exposed to the volatility of BTS but never get to own BTS since there is no expiration date.

Yeah, but SEC doesn't care if people lose or make BTS, as long as their invested USD are safe...

Quote from: kisa on December 18, 2014, 08:24:36 pm

However, it should be possible to defend that bitUSD isn't CFD-like in the US where the value is measured in USD.

Really? How?

CFD investor receives profit or suffers a loss (measured in USD) if the value of the "CFD underlying asset" (e.g. Gold) moves as quoted in USD.

bitUSD issuer or holder is by its very design expected not to receive profit or suffer a loss as measured in USD. Here, profit or loss as measured in USD results out of deviations from parity, which is the opposite to"tracking" underlying asset value, as in case of CFD.

So the liability, if any, should be for bitUSD deviation from parity with USD, and not for offering a speculative security... Would the SEC care? Potentially yes, if they consider that holders or issuers of bitUSD are subject to risk of USD losses. Certainly, SEC is looking to ensure that CFD providers track value of underlying assets closely enough...One could argue that BTS collateralization and bitUSD rules reduce such risk. But perhaps legally most important point is that bitUSD is designed to experiences NO changes in its USD value

Disclosure: This is not legal analysis, just back-of-the-envelope logic.

Charles, would you kindly revive our Book Club thread with your recommendations?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10638.0

Quote from: monsterer on December 18, 2014, 02:46:34 pm

Quote from: mf-tzo on December 18, 2014, 02:27:55 pm

Quote

Ok, I misunderstood your answer. I thought you were saying swift only transferred $22M / day! So, what is the true daily volume?

I don't know that answer but still... even if it is trillions a swift message will  cost you $20 irrespective of how much money you transfer..

The whole argument here is I am trying to compare "swift" as a company with "ripple" as a company (which obviously will provide a better and much cheaper service than swift in the future) and Bitshares company..

So if "swift" as a company is worth now $20 - $40 bil then "ripple" as a company worthing $2.5 bil is overvalued..
BTS as a company worth anything below $500 mil is way undervalued... Now which one of these have the most upside potential with the least risk? that is the question to be answered and i think the answer is obvious...

I think that's over complicating matters; to get a ballpark idea of the relative valuations, just using transaction volume alone will give you some idea. Then you can use the same metric to compare bitshares current valuation to what it would be if it replaced n% of the transaction volume of swift/ripple.

I don't think ripple XRP will replace Swift anytime soon, if ever. Swift is evolving and adapting, and the shareholders of Swift are the very institutions that use it. And if the value of replacing Swift with ripple ever grew large enough to make it worthwhile, institutions would just create their own fork rather than give up all the value.

good argument, I'd leave it at that! it's time to move on

as BitShares obviously don't get intimidated, the (not mutually exclusive) alternatives are:
1. Fight Ripple with a better product/flexibility/community and/or criticism
2. Ignore Ripple and push BitShares own independent agenda as before
3. Study Ripple and learn certain techniques which would be most beneficial to BitShares
4. Create BTS gateway in Ripple and so try to establish synergies (who could work on that?)
5. Propose a wider cooperation plan to RL which is beneficial to both platforms
6. ---?

- should we conduct a poll or is it pointless?

wish you much success with the blog, Dan!

having easy access to and navigation though your main ideas will be of great benefit to the humanity

This message is quite a statement.
I would prefer Dan's view on whether this comparison is helpful or somehow could backfire?