3 ms·
This article seems to make the case not that XRP could be worth nothing, but that XRP will most likely be worth nothing, that it is very unlikely that banks wou
by kenning 9y ago
This article seems to make the case not that XRP could be worth nothing, but that XRP will most likely be worth nothing, that it is very unlikely that banks would tie their entire international trading system to a speculative currency. Is this bullshit, or is the gigantic spike in interest in ripple just speculation?
If banks do end up using xcurrent without xrp is there any benefit to xrp, such as easy transfer using xcurrent, or will it just end up a dead fork, or at best a speculative store of value with no special features?
- shepardrtc 9y agoQuote from the article: "Unfortunately the cost savings provided by XRP are not very high when compared to the risks of adopting it. In the best case scenario XRP would save banks an additional 33% over xCurrent." So, according to the author, using XRP could save banks up to 33% in costs. His argument for saying that won't happen is that its too risky. Ripple (the company's) argument against that is they have escrowed away most of XRP and will release it at very specific intervals. They are very motivated to keep the currency stable. At higher prices, and higher volumes, that will happen.
- tybit 9y agoYour argument seems to pivot from the banks claim that it's too risky to saying that Ripple can solve the volatility problem. While volatility is a big problem, I don't think it's the only (or even the largest) risk to banks using it.
- shepardrtc 9y agoI was assuming that the risk mentioned was volatility. What other risks are you thinking of?