Ripple is scraping the bottom of the barrel, trying to make it look like someone is using its “technology”. Its “partnerships” are nothing but non-binding promises of maybe one day have a look at its platform, and the “financial institutions” that supposedly use Ripple are just one-page websites without a product. Let’s have a look …
Ripples entire premise is that moving money around is somehow difficult. Yet, trillions move daily with no hiccups and with regulatory oversight. The entire reason for ripple to exist is null and void.
Over 90% of butters think the difficult part of Western Union/Moneygram is the accountants/computers keeping track of things, not having someone to receive the cash at point A and hand it out at point B.
Banks still use few decades old mainframe shit. Their release process is so slow that it takes two months to change few characters on the website. But hey they will adapt ripple to remit internationally next month.
No kidding. I don’t want bank to behave like a Silicon Valley startup. “Move fast and break things” work if you have a stupid social sharing app. I want my bank to keep my money secure. So yeah they can be slow ass tech companies.
What I meant was there is no way banks will use ripple and shit in the foreseeable future. Looks like the sarcasm was lost in my previous comment.
Eh, from first hand experience, let me tell you that they move sometimes in sudden and unexpected ways and can release software as often as weekly or bi-weekly if they want. Even daily.
Some things they tend to not touch at all, such as the core banking applications (the ones that keep track of your accounts' balances and movements and that often are a bunch of ancient COBOL applications, possibly running in some CICS transactions, on top of a DB2 on a fairly recent IBM zSeries machine, even if it is a bit less commonly today) but everything that surrounds that can and will be tampered with, including configuration data for those core applications and this leads, invariably, to bugs and errors somewhere. What saves most of them is actually the ability to manually correct the errors after some monitoring report or some client's ticket alerts them of the problem. They do manual corrections daily.
Also, marketing departments request changes to the wording of pages fairly frequently and not all banks are equipped with sane software that enables editing of content without the need to redeploy some (or all) of their site's resources.
Or...you could try saying why the author of the article is wrong, and how these 'institutions' ([one](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06365196/charges) of which uses a London mailing address [shared by 545 companies](https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/sw7-4ag) because they can't afford a real office) are actually giants of the financial world.
Try using reason and references instead of ad-hominems. You'll find your arguments are much more successful with readers that way.
AszebenyiCrypto God | QC: CC 189, XRP 161 month ago
The btc dirt is the scalability. Its the easiest to pick on.
But really, the only reason its not bashed harder is because in general the ones hating on coins like xrp or eth or xlm or xmr are btc maximalists. That, and the infighting between those coins. Doesnt leave a lot of people to get mad at btc.
In fact, im willing to bet most alt coin holders are equally long on btc. The same doesnt hold true going the other way.
This is all just my opinion though.
None of these "partnerships" you link to are part of the post though. Read the article, no amount of links are going to suddenly make the title not true. Almost all of the companies are shady, small, or made by Ripple themselves it seems. As the author says, the $500+ Million that Ripple sold in 2018 would be more than enough to create as many "institutions" as they want.
I don't even care about Ripple/XRP, I don't hate nor love it, but you can't pretend this article doesn't raise some points that any XRP holder should be a little concerned about.
The title specifically says “Ripple’s 200+ institutional clients” then cherry picks a select handful of the smaller ones to desperately try to prove all of the 200 are bullshit.
To which i (and this is a skill anyone can use) simply googled “ripple partners” and found the top few from whom press releases have been directly released announcing hey are partners with Ripple.
You can keep trying and failing to say the article is correct. But the facts do not support you.
Oh I totally agree there, Ripple does have some partners that are clearly going to use them. But why would they need to sign on a bunch of ghost-companies as well if they were going to have this "real use"?
>You can keep trying and failing to say the article is correct.
But the article is correct. the title is clickbait, but the article does not lie.
I feel you may be getting too hung up on the title. Titles don't mean shit, it's the content you should read.
>When one “fact” is proven false and manipulative, why would you then go on to believe anything else it has to say?
Because the other 5 facts in the article that are true. Obviously the title is made to attract people. "Turns out a bunch of Ripple's partners don't exist / don't matter" doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
If one count of "false and manipulative" = not to be trusted, then wouldn't that mean Ripple is not to be trusted? Given that signing these empty / useless companies and passing it off as adoption is manipulative?
The title is a summation of the point the author is trying to prove. Then selectively uses smaller lesser known partners to support the title.
You keep trying to dodge the fact the author is being manipulative. Its not working
Why didnt the author mention santander? Or cualix? Or catalyst?? Because they dont fit the narrative.
Anyone with even one working eyeball can see this is a hit piece. And a lazy one at that.
>The title is a summation of the point the author is trying to prove. Then selectively uses smaller lesser known partners to support the title.
>You keep trying to dodge the fact the author is being manipulative. Its not working
I'm not dodging anything, I acknowledged this already in my last comment. The title is clickbait, the content is factual.
>Why didnt the author mention santander? Or cualix? Or catalyst?? Because they dont fit the narrative.
Because they're legitimate partners that aren't in question here?
>Anyone with even one working eyeball can see this is a hit piece.
Of course it is. OP didn't write this post to pump his XRP bags, that's for sure. Doesn't mean we should ignore what's in the post.
Youre wrong. The reputation is at question here. The title, and then along with the content, then this pull quote “Ripple’s Client Ecosystem Is A Sea Of Bullshit”
Then this pull quote “At this point, I gave up. Not a single one of Ripple’s clients appears to be real, or an actual client.”
The author is suggesting ALL OF RIPPLE’s PARTNERSHIPS.
you are having a hard time getting this.
The article is shit. And false. And misleading.
>you are having a hard time getting this.
And you seem to have a hard time getting the the fact that I've acknowledged twice now that the author is clearly trying to attack Ripple. Doesn't mean his article isn't still filled with facts. I mean this is not hard to understand
I'm not saying those links aren't factual, but linking to shitty crypto news sites is not really the best way to get your point across, and none of these links actually refute what the OP of this article is saying. Thanks for sharing nonetheless
Follow the links in the sites. They go directly to press releases from these institutions. Also, you obviously didnt read my post because this one is from mercury fx directly.
I could easily get more press releases, but it isnt necessary. This proves the author is a lier.
Here it is bottom line: when it is revealed that the author bends, distorts and lies about one thing, their entire credibility is lost.
The author is purposefully (as are you) trying to mislead by obfuscation. Its reprehensible.
The author is a lier and so are you by extension.
You seem to be misunderstanding or mistaking this post. There is nothing about Mercury-fx in the article.
>This proves the author is a lier.
But it doesn't. You're just pasting random, irrelevant links and saying "This proves the author is a lier."
>The author is purposefully (as are you) trying to mislead by obfuscation.
I actually support Ripple (though do not own XRP). I posted this because I wanted to see what XRP holders had to say. So far, I guess they have nothing to say.
>The author is a lier and so are you by extension.
Have you even read the post? Because you commented pretty quick and this post has never existed before today...
Nice attempt at a pivot.
No. The article clearly tries to paint Ripple’s partnerships as bullshit based on a select and distorted few.
My post clearly shows some of the larger ones (and you can easily do your own research to corroborate the facts) have released news on their partnerships with Ripple.
And, yeah. I am quite literate. It wasnt For Whom the Bell Tolls, it is a terribly written, hardly researched and thinly veiled hit piece.
>Nice attempt at a pivot.
I'm not attempting anything, I thought we were having a conversation about the article.
>The article clearly tries to paint Ripple’s partnerships as bullshit based on a select and distorted few.
Does it not worry you at all that many of these partners are either insignificant, or just plain don't really exist then?
>My post clearly shows some of the larger ones (and you can easily do your own research to corroborate the facts) have released news on their partnerships with Ripple.
I do believe that OP titled the article specifically to say that RIpple wasn't a scam, but the "200 institutions" thing was clearly fluff. Sure you can say "well partnership A is real", but no one said it wasn't.
> it is a terribly written, hardly researched and thinly veiled hit piece.
You're totally welcome to your opinion of course, no one can take that from you.
>Does it not worry you at all that many of these partners are either insignificant, or just plain don't really exist then?
To be fair, it's less than 5% of the 200 institutions that are in this article. It is still odd that Ripple felt the need to sign a bunch of fake/tiny companies though.
Insignificant? Seriously? 6 months ago the crypto world shit itself in excitement when verge announce a porn site was going to accept xvg. Today, every other day, ripple adds new partners to use xrp. Sorry they cant all be huge. Im sure you could do better.
However, please. None of them are a scam. This is complete and utterly false.
And no. The 200 is not fluff. Santander, mercury fx, catalyst, hsbc...these are huge fucking institutions. Youre off your fucking nut if you cant see that.
Oh! And thanks for your permission to state my summation of the shit article, and easily draw the same conclusion any sane person would, who isnt actively trying to besmirch xrp. For a moment there i thought maybe i wasnt allowed or something
> 6 months ago the crypto world shit itself in excitement when verge announce a porn site was going to accept xvg.
I can assure you that no one was excited, as someone who was around back then. If you weren't aware, XVG is basically a scam.
>None of them are a scam.
What would you call it when XRP says "this company will use XRP", then that company turns out to either be used by no one anywhere, or not even exist?
>Santander, mercury fx, catalyst, hsbc...these are huge fucking institutions. Youre off your fucking nut if you cant see that.
No need to put words in my mouth, I've not said anything about these companies.
>And thanks for your permission to state my summation of the shit article
yeah no problem