/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53951033
Yeah SWIFT confirmed they would be focussing on Models 1 and 2.

Too sleepy guys? Right, this isn't that important.

I literally am too ignorant and stupid to understand this.

I have two requests please.

1- spoon feed me
2- point me to where I can read all of this in depth.

I've heard these things could involve your little cube, but that it would be closer to 2033-2035 for implementation. You need tens of thousands of engineers to understand this technology before the switch

>>53951033
Check this out
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4219738

I claim this schizo thread in the name of XRP

And then they go on to say that Model 2 solved significant issues that arose under Model 1

>>53951090
>https://files.catbox.moe/9lenly.pdf

R3 and Quorum.

>>53951140

>>53951096
I would have thought the same thing, but this report shows things are moving at an pretty incredible pace. In just 3 years since probing seriously into CBDCs they're nearly ready to start pushing out their initial implementations. But- There are just a few pieces missing still...

It's all laid out, in a fairly detailed manner for anyone who searches to find.

So here is SWIFT and Capgemini telling us how it's going to go down, even being so nice as to provide 3 different possible scenarios and EXACTLY how they work.

It's up to you on how you use that information.

>>53951033
Isn't this a half year old document?
There should be an update somewhere of this soon.
The migration phase to ISO20022 should officially start this month and the secondary service integration starts in Q4.
There should be some form of announcement somewhere on what's coming out.

I can't imagine waiting until the next SmartCon to get the important announcements, but then again they probably don't want to waste their hype factor on BTC dumps in a recovering market...

why should I read any of this when I can check the price and know that you are lying to everyone in the eyes of God
Ignorance is peace.

>>53951303
the price of what? This thread is about CBDCs.

uses corpo chains and yall think they going to use ur lil shitcoin.

marines grasping for anything at this point

>>53951311
There you go again with the lying.
>>53951033
>But how will the CBDC "digital islands" of the (very near) future connect?
>Well, Jonathan Solè of SWIFT has already shed some light on that.
Is the answer to this question CBDCs

>>53951317
If not this, then what do you think that Chainlink's 2022 PoC with SWIFT was about?

>>53951331
This is a SWIFT report. Jonathan Sole works for SWIFT, and made comments around the same time as this whitepaper. Is drawing a connection lying? Certainly he did mention a coin but where is the suggestion that it should be purchased in this thread?

Nothing but facts have been stated. Keep crying though :)

>>53951351
outreach to the larger industry as a goodwill gesture. "Hey we arent so scary look at us with your buddy"

there is such a huge conflict of interest here when a 3rd party independent party could potentially influence global settlement.

this would be fine if it was a private company but not when its "owned" by thousands of degens

There’s been threads about this before

>>53951419
But what did they actually work on/build/develop as their 2022 PoC if it wasn't this "technical interface to communicate between CBDCs and between CBDCs and fiat"?

>>53951317
Get a load of this Bulgarian typing like a nigger to disguise his usual word salad. Niggerdom is insufficient camouflage! Try again.

>>53951331
kek fudders so delusional thinking swift has anything to do with link. I dont give a shit about link, but its obvious some of the people on biz have some kind of obsession towards the damn thing in a pretty unhealthy manner.

Go outside, get some air, touch some grass, eat some decent food, and if need be check into a mental hospital. Not everything is about link and requires you to say token not needed. Cheers bud.

>>53951033
This fits quite well with the pseudo prophecy. Let’s see if April will be it.

>>53951459
A prophecy fit for a clown world.
It was initially ignored when released, and suddenly became used as a reference after many predicted things came...

However if you become to obsessed with only one thing, the cabal will use it to attack your confidence.
In this case they may get the idea to do another btc dump in May to fuck with those who follow this prophecy.
Remember who is manipulating the market, and the limitations of a prophecy predicting the future 2 years.

>>53951033
Cool pic op, but they’re implying that they want to fucking centralize FX clearing between sovereign chains. That’s never going to happen, of course it looks great on paper to these tech nerds, because they have never had to deal with a CCP in their life

>>53951071
>>53951075
>>53951105
Useless drivel

>>53951140
At least this page admits nobody’s going to fucking use it because it will be expensive lmao

>>53951219
>fiat to CBDC flow
Probably the most realistic usecase, since there will undoubtedly be countries that cripple themselves trying to race to muh crypto. Of course the ridiculous costs for these transactions will be worn by the receiver I imagine

>>53951514
I don’t expect good things to happen anymore so you’re right

>>53951570
April is next month bud. Keep your chins up.

>>53951597
You’re right but I’m still pessimistic after this bear market dildo especially since I got excited for staking 0.1 and Smartcon

>>53951033
Checked. Things will be looking good in 5 years or so.

>>53951033
>I have not seen this whitepaper mentioned anywhere
we had few threads of it

>>53951570
That means their destruction campaign was successful.
Sergey also has an issue with betrayal that needs to be fixed, but I am not his therapist...

However something should happen this year even if it's just an announcement of something happening for real next year.
My estimation is for CCIP to be released in the second half of this year with no announcement before, and only an announcement of the release this time once it reaches a good level of testing.
There should also be something with DECO in a similar time frame.

Chainlink functions seems to be targeting company integrations into existing systems.
I didn't check that out, and it may take more time to be released which could take us into next year, but it seems like everything is being prepared for a big launch party which will accelerate integrations and make the space grow quickly.
CCIP is one of the main bottlenecks for this, but Chainlink functions using DONs to execute private code is a very important missing piece to make it work.

The question is when they will finally release this.
The worst case scenario would be to have to wait for staking v1.0 to get everything.
But we should get a few earlier releases to test out the features instead of releasing everything at the same time.
This should be enough to generate adoption and hype again.

The market may have a 6 month period of bullishness this year which they can exploit too and avoid FED fud this time.

>>53951940
Thats all well and good but when do i make it with my suicide stack? Link can breach 2k a token, right?

If we make it I will do everything in my power to

>>53951999
The post that broke /biz/. Checked.

>>53951033
These pictures came from Quant Network's PowerPoint slides
I'm gonna be so fucking rich

>>53951033
this pdf is available on swifts website (email required)
>ctrl+f 'chainlink'
>zero results

>>53952108
>Ctrl+f Quant
>many results
It's happening

If they just uss the XRPL then it's pretty simple.
Why do you need CL when right now even idiots can move USD to yen using XRP IN UNDER 10 SECONDS TOTAL counting the getting out of XRP part?

You can literally buy, send, then sell with in 10 seconds.
And they are going to eschew that for some convoluted ETH token and slow contract?
Just use XRPL and any regular process program kek.

Are they this desperate about losing control?

>>53952149
>move USD to yen using XRP

1) use USD to buy [random coin X]
2) use [random coin X] to buy Yen

The end.
It works the exact same for any blockchain, there's literally nothing that sets Ripple apart.

>>53952177
Nothing except speed, reliability, and depth of volume.
Kek
You haven't used the XRPL have you?

Linkies are gonna be rich as fuck aren’t they. Looks like all the corps involved in functions are the same corps involved in swift.

>>53951940
>lots of words to say nothing
>hey look i typed a lot so that means im in the know

Ugh

>>53952187
>speed, reliability, and depth of volume
Pretty much all L1s make these claims.
The more centralized they are, the faster they are.
Truly private chains like Corda etc. blow the absolute pants off of BTC, ETH, XRPL, ...

>>53952100
QNT's booth at SIBOS this year was sick. WAGMI

>>53952196
Very unlikely. Unfortunately its not 2017 anymore so the “project”, and thats what i is, a research project that you fund, is going to have to actually do something to move price.

Serg probably never saw the grift actually going this far, so he has to keep drawing it out with very slow beta releases until a viable exit presents itself. Most likely he’ll be able to use regulation for the reason it failed and then he can slip out with minimal financial repurcussions. Although he may have to stay out of public though if the cult turns on him haha

>>53951033
Seems like QNT, XRP, XLM and XDC will take the cake. LINK doesn't seem to be ISO20022 compliant, but they likely will have to be to stand a chance

>>53952177
>1) use USD to buy [random coin X]
>2) use [random coin X] to buy Yen

btw, if you want to automate these two transactions in a decentralized manner, you need oracles. Even on cripple.

>>53952227
Aren’t Linkies earning a higher % staking than Eth holders?

I genuinely thought they'd nuked 4 chan because of this thread giving up too much Alpha. Thats how schizo holding LINK for 5 years has made me.

>>53952200
XRPL is the most decentralized of all in any meaning sense.
XRPL has run perfectly for a.decade.

This paper seems to be a bit academic in style.
It also seems very focused on inter-bank transactions. Like their goal is to prevent theft by their own partners.

It's completely different from the digital slavery Davos shit.

>>53952200
Also corda settles using the XRPL.
It's hilarious how uninformed people are.

Did they shutdown 4chan to suppress this

>>53952328
You are posting to 4ch.

>>53952320
>Also corda settles using the XRPL.
No, corda wanted to show that it can settle coins outside of the Corda chain, and used some XRP they got for free as an example. And this was in 2018 and never heard from again.
It's the absolute most basic bitch-tier cross-chain transaction imaginable, and most likely involved someone literally making a manual transaction on Corda when they saw the XRP going from wallet to wallet.

>>53952372
Yea that's the story right?
Kek
Stick to it.

>>53952395
That's quite literally what it is.
Literally the only reason Corda Settler would ever use XRP(L), is if someone specifically wanted to send XRP.

>>53952460
>pulling shit out of my ass
/the post

>>53952473
Look it up lmao.
XRP is always referred to as an example.

Pic related, "cryptocurrencies subject to public blockchains"

cryptocurrency BTC subject to the Bitcoin blockchain
cryptocurrency ETH subject to the Ethereum blockchain
cryptocurrency XRP subject to the XRPL blockchain
etc.

>>53952473
>>53952492

>>53952460
Or for the speed, reliability, and etc.
Corda has to use SOMETHING.
XRP was the first process they integrated and there are tutorials on their website currently for how it's done.
It's been the sams for 10 years, so not much point in updates.

I sent BTC the other day and it took 47 minutes.
ETH took 12.

>>53951033
>>53951071
>>53951075
The only way you will change sentiment here you CLL employee cuck is if you start putting stuff out thats not a test net

>>53952492
Btc 47 minutes EACH WAY.
ETH 12 minutes EACH WAY
XRP 10 seconds total.

I'll stop now and let you think.

>>53952492
Yeah it's only an example. It must be

>>53952473
Xrp is such a wonderful product that all the exchanges stopped trading it and delisted it. Yeah it has a future, kek.
Xrp is clown shoes, it’s ATH was in 2018 and the only thing people buy with it is grandpa jeans

>>53952505
>Or for the speed, reliability, and etc.
If the specific Corda Settler user happens to think XRP is faster and more reliable, sure.

>Corda has to use SOMETHING.
It uses whatever blockchain is native to the coin being transacted.

>XRP was the first process they integrated
As an example, yes.

>>53952516
The more centralized the blockchain, the faster the transactions.
Actual Corda transactions are even faster than XRPL transactions.

>>53952520
Don't take my word for it, see >>53952504

>>53952532
But it has to go off chain at some point.
The world wants a neutral playig field.
That is the XRPL.
No benefit to anyone. No advantage to anyone.

>>53952519
Clown shoes and granda jeans fit this clown world perfectly
>honk honk motherfucker
>>53952532
>they're all just examples
>nothing could ever be tangible or real
>everything is an example

>>53952516
People use BTC and ETH

NO ONE uses xrp

Its only usecase is to dump on goyim

>>53952568
All you're saying is "the only blockchain people will use is XRPL".
Which is what all maxis say about their specific chain.

>>53952572
Corda literally explains that it's an example.
Sorry if this is bad news to you.

>>53952582
No.
I'm saying for the financial world where speed amd reliability matters, it's the objective best.

The measure micrometers of Ethernet cable at regulated exchanges it's that important.
People will use it for this reason.
I do international money transfer.
If something better comes ill switch immediately.

>>53952575
are we really this close to the ripple case ending? i hope xrp price stays low for at least a few days or weeks, my bags aren't fully packed yet

>>53952595
>for the financial world where speed amd reliability matters, it's the objective best.
Then why would they use Corda Settler, instead of just using XRP directly?

And if XRPL is the fastest and most reliable, why is virtually nobody using XRPL today (or even before the SEC suit), while tons of other chains are seeing massive usage?

>>53952596
It won't even move on settlement.

>>53952632
Big money wants to use their own solution. No surprise.
But that will slowly lose out as it misses t entire point.
It's the bandaid for the transition to help them cope.

>>53952632
The trading volume is exchange volume.
Not settlement volume.
Banks around the world already use XRPL, just not the big dogs.

>>53952595
>hurrr my blockchain is fastest and best
They all say that

>>53952669
>Banks around the world already use XRPL

>>53952671
It's not mine.
I use it.
And I've said NOTHING about price action.
I actually think it's too efficient to go up very high.
It's capable of moving "all the money"at just a dollar or two max.

>>53952636
shit i'll have to buy more immediately

>>53952691
>And I've said NOTHING about price action.
Neither have I.

Have fun with your blockchain which is the fastest and best, just like all the others.

>>53952688
That literally says 2020, July.
And that's ripples odl service.
That's a product they sell.

You have no understanding of the XRPL.
IT'S JUST THERE TO USE.
Ripple is literally a separate thing.

>>53952704
What's faster, longer running?
Ill wait.

>>53952707
>That literally says 2020, July.
How many banks signed on between July 2020 and the SEC suit in December 2020?

>And that's ripples odl service.
ODL is literally Ripple's "settlement" mechanism.
Their absolute primary use case, the same one you've been talking about this whole time.

>>53952733
But ripple doesn't run or control the XRPL.
And they're working internationally. Quite a few.

>>53952712
>faster
Kek half the chains out there claim to be faster than ripple.

>>53952733
Ripple odl customers grew 800% just last year alone

>>53952752
But xrpl has been settling in 3-5 seconds for over a decade.
You can do this yourself right now.
It's not a claim, it's a fact.

Also, i move money. 50k many times a year. I'm small of course, but I'm not trusting that to startupchainfrom2022.
Kek
Bizlets

>>53952779
>3-5 seconds
Fantom 1 second
Nano 2 seconds
Polygon 2.1 seconds
etc. etc. etc.

>>53952124
Gilbert mentioned on telegram that he had a good chat with Jonathan Solè at the urinal at Sibos indicating QNT's API gateways will be used. WAGMI

>>53952746
>Quite a few.
So post some of them.

>>53952762
Source: Ripple

>>53952808
My paycheck will come in 3 days. I'll be able to grab some more xerpies then. WAGMI XRP BROS!

lmao so biz went down and now there are a ton of xrp pajeets shitting up the thread

>>53952798
Polygon doesn't settle tx with finality.
The other two have downtime.

This is what I mean. That's NOT acceptable with big money on the line.

>>53952930
we are reaching unprecedented levels of "shut it down"

>>53952808
Bank of Thailand.
Also, ripple has to file real financial disclosure as a public company with shares.
They can't just make stuff up.

>>53952971
Biz never went down.
No one can answer why they would use something slow instead of fast though. Weird.

The real answer is that CL and XRP have nothing to do with each other.

>>53952952
Assuming you are right and XRPL is the fastest and most secure available. What does it have to do with the OP pic? Clearly the solutions are not referencing XRPL

>>53951999
holy checked. the post so based they SHUT. IT. DOWN.

>>53953000
I asked a question to the retards here why they even need smart contracts when you could just use regular script and then use something way faster instead of convoluting the entire process.
They all.sperged.

6 years

>>53952998
>yes goy, just disbelieve your own memories

>>53952975
>Bank of Thailand.
lmao, source?

>>53952952
>The other two have downtime.
So does XRPL

XRPL does literally nothing different from any other L1.

>>53952952
AVAX. Sub-second finality, no downtime, infinitely scalable. There is no need for anything else except for Chainlink.

XRP vill be used, and you vill be happy.

But mainly can all these XRP jeets get out of our fucking comfy Link thread please?

>there's no downtime on XRPL
https://u.today/xrp-ledger-is-back-on-track-after-temporary-halt
get fucked

>>53953349
>muh russian shitcoin built on muh russian shitcoin shitchain
You're going to get the brakes beat off ya sonny boyo.

>>53952998
>never went down
You couldn't post

>>53953360
Down for 15 minutes
No transactions were lost
Negative UNL implemented afterward to validate transactions in the event of a partial outage.
15 minutes downtime in 10 years versus:
https://cryptobriefing.com/chainlink-experiences-6-hour-delay-eth-price-feed/
The absolute state of linkies.

>>53952779
>staking will never happen!
>don't stake your Link!
>ccip will never happen!
>I don't trust ccip!
>I'm a retard!
Yes, you are

>>53953465
>there are no halts on the XRPL
>nooooo ignore that nooooooo
I don't give a flying fuck about shitlink, you lost

>>53953465
>https://cryptobriefing.com/chainlink-experiences-6-hour-delay-eth-price-feed/
lmao that was literally ETH congesting due to a massive market crash.
Chainlink was the only oracle that kept working during that episode, but the oracles were delayed by the Ethereum blockchain.

>>53951033
Thanks for the CBDC update OP, very interesting things are happening! I remember seeing that video of Jonathon from SWIFT, I think it was at some event called Smart-something, him and the BNY melon guy had some great insights!

>Xrps ath was 2017 and will only keep going towards 0
>xrp baggies invading other threads thinking their shitcoin has any relevance at all
Lmao

I like how OP never mentioned that this is a QNT thread to bait LINK holders lol.

>>53953617
I think I remember that smart-something too and the guy from that conference was in Sibos too. Kinda cool stuff happenin

>>53951999
CHECKED

>>53951033
I've mentioned that paper (or one similar that discussed the 3 models) before... I'd have to look back at which one it was.

Chains interlinked

As a Linkchad it really grinds my gears that we're constantly lumped in with XRP-schizos. We've got literally confirmed partnerships and collaborations with top-tier companies, our "breadcrumbs" are legit; we're not like XRP-schizos who blatantly hallucinate partnerships / institutiomal use...

>>53953875
kek
you're equally deranged bro

>>53952250
Kek Sergey was literally talking about ISO20022 before anyone even knew what it was.

>>53954136
>stinkylinkies seething at xrp chads again with false information
That's all that fast bastard can do anymore. Talk.

>>53952575
I use XRP. It is fast and cheap whilst BTC and ETH are slow and expensive.
Do you really waste time and money for no reason at all?
Do think others do as well?

The volume online trading it back and forth is not really business volume.

>>53953329
When was the XRPL down?

>>53953329
I just used a thing called google and then it took me to their website.
Are you really this stupid? Or what?

>>53953603
So you are saying it was retarded to build on ETH and they should have built on the XRPL?

>>53951033
>Model 3 is unlikely IMO and by their own admission due to the scope of regulatory limitations of individual countries.
Its going to be Model 3

>>53951033
>>53951071
>>53951075
>laggards rediscovering the wheel

>>53951090
>1- spoon feed me
Buy ISO20022 like XRP, XLM, QUANT, ALGO, XDC
>2- point me to where I can read all of this in depth.
Google ISO20022 3 million results

>>53951963
In the next decade.
Chainlink is finally starting its phase of slow and continuous growth which will last 10-15 years.

>>53951075
So.. you're saying we should buy Mobius?

>>53956656
This. Model 3 is the only model that can support mCBDCs (multi-CBDCs) and this had been discussed extensively. OP is a lying fudder trying to bluff otherwise.

>>53956673
I'm the one who asked anon for the document and did the first breakdown of it.
>>53957809
They literally didn't even look into Model 3 because it was unfeasible.

>>53957485
>next decade

>>53951033
The banking system will use Corda and that's the end of the story. No cryptocurrency will benefit.

>>53957862
>They literally didn't even look into Model 3 because it was unfeasible.
You're taking what they wrote as face value anon, you're un-ironically NGMI in finance if you continue like this.

>>53958062
I'm taking the failure of Project Dunbar, and the fact that the entire Connecting Digital Islands document is about moving forward after the failure of Dunbar, as proof that Model 3 has been written off.
This document originally required a corporate email to even get a copy of. It wasn't released openly to the public.

>>53958092
https://u.today/ripple-advisor-sheds-light-on-private-xrp-ledger-and-cbdc-projects

>>53957916
Luckily for you if you learn to trade properly (weekly-monthly time frame) you can swing a part of your stack through 2 or 3 crypto cycles until it reaches that price.
You will also get an easy x4-8 this year (maybe more) and now is the point of maximum opportunity so you can increase your stack.

The 9 month accumulation range we are in will enable a big pump once we finally exit from it, and the mass of positive developments and suppressed news should allow it to reach 3 digits by next year.
A suicide stack of 10k is an alright amount to have and should enable you to become a millionaire next year.

You should at the minimum have invested 1 year of your net income into this before Chainlink leaves this range.
Take a loan if you have to, but don't go full degen on it, don't use leverage on exchanges, remove the token from it and accept that your stop loss is 0.

>>53951184
> But- There are just a few pieces missing still..
What are they?

>>53951425
I don't get it, why didn't he answer your question?

LINK works in interoperability, not settlement. XRP is one of those chains that LINK will be connecting and helping it moon. If anything XRP holders will gain more from the success of Chainlink labs than actual LINK holders, just like ETH holders are currently the main beneficiaries of LINK's oracles.

>>53958099
>Welfare
bullish

>>53958324
This very well could be, I can easily see that happening

>>53958324
This is an actual informed post.
The issue is that XRP does not depend on Chainlink whilst Chainlink really needs something akin to XRP to succeed because there has to be enough liquidity for it's product to matter.
But yes, they are not in competition and will benefit each other.

The issue really that is at hand though is that Ripple and the good guys have cornered the Chainlink rats into this scenario.
There is a reason XRP and Ripple are attacked when Chainlink and ETH are far more centralized and security-like than XRP.
The SEC also destroyed LBRY. Literally a token who's entire goal is to educate people and spread knowledge.
Yet they leave CL and ETH alone. HMMMMMMM.

>>53958418
Pfft

>>53958418
Yeah they're not competitors at all, it's just investor tribalism, they basically got chainlink by the balls

>>53952124
KEK many results because "quant" is a french word for "as to" or "with respect to" you fucking retard.

Unbelievable. Why do I even bother coming here

>>53958418
How long did it take your discord to come up with this?

>>53956912
price prediction for xrp, xlm, xdc in 5 years?

This is the most creative slide method I've seen so far, kudos
>>53958974
Its more entertaining than someone typing nigger in all caps over and over again

>>53958418
noone needs a liquidity token

>>53958974
Why is ETH and LINK left alone when they blatantly break all the rules that Ripple and LBRY did?
Ripple just holds XRP and makes no improvements at all to the ledger and doesn't control it.
They are also net buyers for the last 5 years.
Meanwhile ETH foundation and CL are selling tokens and even changing from POW to POS and all profit in the future is blatantly dependent on them.
What gives?

>>53959955
Schmidt is washed up.
They don't need liquidity until they do.
Also, Google was DARPA and Schmidt glows and tbe good guys have them by the balls.
Go vote Biden again.
>Inb4 anything
I don't vote.

Oooh linkies when will you learn...

>>53959450
>Its more entertaining than someone typing nigger in all caps over and over again
doubt

>>53960473
Garlinghouse made multiple, explicit statements suggesting that the price of XRP would go up, and that people should buy it on that basis.

Yesterday the whole site was shut down because some incel faggot couldn't stfu about le ETH Denver Bombing. STFU schizo that event has already been memory holed and the crypto devs that died were replaced by reptilians in skin suits so there is nothing to discuss. Fucking schizos man

>>53960738
holy fuck take your meds

>>53951033
I eat eggs

>>53960738
MEDS ASAP SCHIZO

>>53960509
no like the entire concept of a liquidity token predates a lot of the advancements in the space, you just don't need it now, CBDC's will be the liquidity and swapped directly

>>53958324
Why are chainfucks so delusional? XRP and the XRPL has nothing to do with your pricefeed dev dump token holy shit shut the fuck up and take your meds.

>>53951940
You realize that Chainlink is just to test it in the wild. The real system will use the proven parts but will be something new. Adoption of the new one will come top-down, like ESG.

>>53959358
Eggs

>>53953329
Pancakes

>>53953107
Canadien bacon

>>53952798
Waffles

>>53952688
Hash browns

>>53952108
Muffins

>>53951537
>>53951570
>>53951597
>>53951847
>>53951894

Bagels

>>53951219
Eggs Benedict

>literally pause /biz/ for hours yesterday
>come back with XRP spam
>now moving to literal spam to reach the bump limit
When you take a second to reflect on the intensity of reaction that you elicit, just for discussing a little chainlink crumb, it’s really nothing short of spectacular.
LINK OGs really are the center of the world.

>>53953370
Granola

>>53953341
Bacon

>>53953473
Porridge

>>53960582
Avocado toast

>>53955911
Biscuits and gravy

>>53953981
Yogurt

>>53958617
Cinnamon rolls

>>53952075
Oatmeal

>>53961083
Berries

>>53960622
I will never trust a man like him
Only weak minded tools would fall for his verbal diarrhea

The fuck is going on in here?

>>53951999
chek

so is chainlink gonna moon n shiet

>>53961745
it's called sliding

XRP King Baby

>>53951075
I’m so glad I bought ripple.
This shit has garlinghouse all over it

>>53957862
>They literally didn't even look into Model 3 because it was unfeasible
This is false. Show me any evidence of your claim. Total bs
Protip: he won't, but will ignore or obfuscate

>>53962430
Uh oh, looks like this faggot who got btfo is back
>>53951303
>>53951331
Mr rent free in the building

>h-how did he know it was me, I waited a whole day!

>>53961851
Yeah

>>53962430
>show me any evidence
literally in this exact thread you fucking embarrassment
>>53951071

>>53962682
thats not evidence
thats just words put in a sequence inside a screenshot

I plan on opening a European style bakery when I make it

>>53962711
Yeah, the muffin shop in Sofia. I'm tired of reading about your culinary dreams, Rebecca.

>>53962682
You've intentionally misinterpreted that document, missing out pages and trying to spin it to appear model 3 is out of the picture. Epic fail and rubbish fud.

>>53962881
>Show me any evidence of your claim
*shows evidence*
>nononononono not like that
lmao the feeling of superiority over you i have right now is intense. visceral. domination. dominion.

>>53962894
If it was evidence I would admit defeat. Its not evidence at all and in fact that report is evidence to the contrary of your claim.
Also, your childish approach to debate only serves to show you for what you are. I'm sorry for others who lost most of their Link stack but in your case I make an exception. You clearly deserved it.

>>53951075
Best part is this is only one major institution that will use the hexagon. There is going to hundreds more.

>>53962948
feel free to continue to hang around in this thread while I dunk on your lifeless body and everyone laughs at you for getting so utterly annihilated.

>>53962980
You seem angry babygirl, what’s wrong?

>>53963053
>blasted into such small smithereens that he changed devices
HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

>>53962980
The bottom quote is the start of phase 1 in 2021. The screenshot cut off the rest of the page and the implication is that this is the conclusion of the report. False.
Still, I'm sure you'll claim otherwise.

>>53963058
I just got here, but Links going to $81,000 lets just get straight to the point.

>>53963065
Funny how you say all this shit without actually posting the apparent context that I'm missing out lmao. Should be pretty easy to corroborate, shouldn't it?
And wasn't your initial assertion:
>show me any evidence of your claim
which I did, by showing that SWIFT's PoCs were only focussing on Model 1 and 2 to the notable exception of 3.
You suck at this.

>>53952688
Ripple is working with 20 central banks on CBDCs (head of project says many more under NDA) and already is partnered with 38 of the top 100 banks in the world (more under NDA). They patented ODL (no need to prefund accounts), own a controlling stake in the Moneygram of the East (Trianglo) and have seen a massively over-expectation ODL adoption rate which has literally accelerated such that when almost every single other tech company is firing, they are hiring. You don't understand settlement. Literally no one can even hypothetically compete with their cost basis and no need for nostro/vostro accounts. Anyone who tries will go extinct trying. If you think it is arguable, you don't understand finance.
https://www.xrparcade.com/world-top-100-banks/

>>53959955
Good joke. And literally fucking hilarious to hear the "token not needed" argument from a retard Chainlink fagg

>>53963118
I'm phone posting and don't wish to start trying to download and edit pdf docs now.
Your obsession with the evidence comment is still false as I disregarded it on account of it being incomplete. Say it again, though. The first 4 times were amazing.
I'm so glad you lost a load of your stack, BTW. Little slimeballs like you always get what's coning to them. Enjoy being poor or way below what you'd hoped for. You should learn a spiritual lesson here, Gollum.

>>53961083
There is a thing called copyright making it impossible for another business to copy their technology without going the SBF route.
By the way did you hear of the PoC with Swift and their multi year long strong partnership?
Chainlink was the selected project for this purpose even before they had an ICO.

>>53963167
>reduced to pouty ad hom
better luck next thread, bud. Can’t win ‘em all

>>53963249
Try to see yourself for what you have become, Gollum. Try to figure it out.

Nice thread

seriusly tho this is all a nuthin boiger

>>53956523
see >>53953360

>>53956591
That's not the "Bank of Thailand" lmao

Also, that was announced in April 2020, meaning they never actually used Ripple; see pic here >>53952688

>>53963154
>You don't understand settlement.
Ripple's version of settlement is "people will just convert to XRP and back".
Which is so hilariously retarded it's just beyond satire.

Not only are there tons of blockchains that can do the exact same thing but faster than XRPL, but institutions don't want to settle in some crypto; they want to settle in digital assets like bonds, stablecoins, etc.

My daughter is dating a douche-bag I don't know where I messed up, I thought I taught her well on what to look for in a man. The guy just showed up at my house and starting rambling on about how DCAing 30 dollars in 4 months into OpenBetAI helped him understand finance and geopolitics. I told him he was completely oblivious about being in a ponzi, this only unchained what I believed to be a cocaine induced speech saying that OpenBetAI was going to be the next Bitcoin and he was going to moon while buying lambos for his friends because he was no Bitch-ass paperhands I'm a bank executive, so you can only imagine what a nightmare this is for me. Don't know what the point of this post is, is not like my daughter is going to stop dating that idiot anyways. I'm scared about my daughter's future.

>>53951033
I thought this is a follow up from the old thread.
>>/biz/thread/53005787

>Connecting Digital Islands

>>53951033
>see the bigger picture ?
yeah
swift doesn't use chainlink

>>53951115
I highly recommend that people actually read through the pdf shared.

The very short summary is this:
SWIFT has laid out three potential approaches to a multi-CBDC future and how they will interact. The first one was a proof of concept they finished in 2021. The second one is the proof of concept that they have just finished.
The second one is 100% the Chainlink based approach. All of the language about flexibility, about inter-DLT and DLT-off chain, about smart contracts, it's all exactly what Chainlink have laid out. It has been a total success and it has advantages that the other two approaches do not.
BUT it's likely they will still do a test run for approach #3 next year. It would make sense that they'd attempt a serious proof of concept of all three possible structures (unless #2 has been such a success that the other two are lip service).
If they do go for a solution #3 PoC, it might be XRP based, I don't know. It lays out everything running in a unified environment, unlike Chainlink which is all about intercommunication between disparate systems.

The super tldr is that this document is almost incontrovertibly the Chainlink PoC with SWIFT, and it has been a huge success, but does not guarantee beyond doubt that Chainlink will be the final adopted solution.

>>53963657
Yeah nah, they only literally partnered on interoperability; the key to RWA transactions lmao

>>53963726
Damn so link gets btfo next year

>>53951033
Why are you reposting this retarded thread, we have discussed this months ago. It was even on CT months ago.

>>53963767
Why are you upset over it?

>>53963726
That's quoting anon's post from last year btw.

>>53960622
So no answer. Got it.

>>53960473
>ETH and Link break all the rules that Ripple and LBRY did
No, they did not.

>>53963460
>Never moved real money before

>>53964775
Not discussing price is not in the howie test retard.

>>53964788
Telling buyers you'll make the price go up is the deciding factor in the Howey test.
Not discussing price at all is the opposite of that.

>>53964798
ETH and CL are highly centralized and selling tokens and pay people online to shill the tokens.

Meanwhile Ripple literally does not even control the XRPL.

Also, I hold XRP and the MOST bullish case is Ripple losing for the reasons above. No effect on the XRPL.

You are in bed with total scum.

>>53964820
>ETH and CL are highly centralized
Being centralized or not has NOTHING to do with the Howey test.

>pay people online to shill the tokens
If you can prove that in court, then great for you.
Meanwhile we have years of direct proof of Ripple execs shilling the price of XRP, straight from the horse's mouth.

>>53964834
Anon and Gary sitttin in a tree.
K I S S I N G

>>53964843
Gensler wasn't even born yet when the Howey standard was established.

>>53951033
gay

>>53958324
HAHAHAHA chainlink fudders all replying to each other shilling ECKS ARE PEE hahahaha NEVER SELLING

>>53958324
>>53958395
>>53958418
>>53960812
Literally any blockchain works identically to XRPL for settlement.
>sell asset X for coin Y
>sell coin Y for asset Z

Many blockchains do it even faster than XRPL.

>>53964849
But you love him anyway and spread his gospel.

>>53964973
>the Howey test is Gensler's gospel
k

>>53964945
And there are products better than Windows.
Kek
Makes no difference. Big operations don't take chances.
They use old reliable and trusted tech.

>>53964982
Howey requires a contract.

And again, the convo is about the XRPL, WHICH RIPPLE LITERALLY DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OF.
They are basically me with more XRP.
I hope they are forced to burn the escrow honestly.

>>53964987
>They use old reliable and trusted tech.
And yet banks aren't using Ripple.
They're using a huge variety of both private and public blockchains, but not Ripple.

>>53965004
>Howey requires a contract.
No, it doesn't.
Howey determines whether something IS a contract.

>>53965012
>>53963154
Are you just paid to lie?
It's weird because XRP posters don't just lie about CL.
But th opposite happens constantly.
It's almost like their is paid promotion a d they fear XRP.

>>53965385
>Are you just paid to lie?

Says the anon who said "Howey requires a contract" lmao

>>53965423
There has NEVER been a scenario where something was deemed a security without a contract of some sort.
Cope and thanks for admitting your lies.

>>53965501
>There has NEVER been a scenario where something was deemed a security without a contract of some sort.
Except Enigma, LBRY?

The Howey test is used to determine whether something IS a contract, you complete and utter nonce.

This entire thread is XRP frens seething.

Have the fudders pivoted?

>>53965510
Lol no, Howey test is to determine if something is a security. A security always has a contract, but not all contracts are securities. Fucking retard, how dumb can you be.

>>53952372
this is true, although XDC is built on Corda. thoughts?

>>53965551
>Lol no, Howey test is to determine if something is a security.

>>53965595
Thanks for proving my point.
>"For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract means a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party..."
Note how they specifically denote "investment contract" a.k.a a security given it's the SECURITIES ACT. They don't say "all contracts" or "any contract", they specifically say "investment contract".
Thanks for confirming you have sub-80 IQ and stunted reading comprehension lol

>>53965681
They're saying things like transactions can be "investment contracts".
You're really dumb.

>>53965699
They're defining how an investment contract can arise idiot hahaha you really are stupid. Contract, Transaction, Scheme, are all executed on the basis of offer and acceptance. But not all transactions or schemes are investment contracts (a.k.a securities) if they don't meet the second part of the criteria "whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party".
Suck my balls retard, way to get yourself BTFO

>>53965786
They're literally saying a transaction can be a 'contract'.
This contradicts the notion that "there has to be a contract for there to be a security'.

>>53965798
A TRANSACTION IS A CONTRACT
Holy fuck do you not even know the basic definition of a contract.

>>53965822
>A TRANSACTION IS A CONTRACT
Yes.

>>53965833
Exactly, but not all transactions are investment contracts a.k.a securities.
Hence why the Howey test is to determine whether the definition of an INVESTMENT CONTRACT a.k.a security is met, not just whether it meets the definition of a contract. There is a huge difference between the two, something which you utterly fail to comprehend.

>>53965860
>but not all transactions are investment contracts a.k.a securities
kek, no

But you do not need a literal written contractual agreement for there to be a security.
A simple transaction suffices.

>>53965876
OMG you are braindead aren't you. You think the word "contract" means a literal written document don't you hahaha It actually means any instance where there is an offer and an agreement a.k.a transaction/scheme etc.
Hahaha go do some Contract Law 101 courses or something.

>>53965913
So this anon: >>53965004
was trying to claim that the people who bought XRP never transacted it?

>>53965913
>You think the word "contract" means a literal written document don't you
I've been arguing the exact opposite of this btw.

You're really bad at this.

>>53965926
He's not wrong, Howey does require a contract, an investment contract to be precise.
Where does he say that people who bought XRP never transacted it? Or do you want me to read through your 10,000 posts of rambling?

>>53965988
He was trying to say XRP isn't a security because there was no contract.

>>53965984
Kek you're the one who doesn't understand that a transaction is a contract. Just admit you got BTFO and now you're a salty bitch. Maybe you can suck my nuts at Smartcon lol

>>53966010
>you're the one who doesn't understand that a transaction is a contract
My point was that transactions are contracts, and I posted the source for it.

>>53966000
Well maybe you should keep that argument going with him. You're the one that said the Howey test is to determine if something is a contract, which is entirely wrong because not all contracts are securities which immediately invalidates your argument lol

>>53966023
>They're literally saying a transaction can be a 'contract'
^^ this you? Notice how you use the word "can" and not "is". Weird, almost like you don't understand that transactions ARE contracts, not transactions MIGHT be contracts. Case closed lol

>>53951075
my main problem is that i dont have any money to buy your stupid coin so any meat waving of a boiled up master plan behind the scene is just making me more depressed

>>53966039
>You're the one that said the Howey test is to determine if something is a contract
The original Howey ruling literally says there's an "investment contract" when "a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter".
The original Howey test applied to "investment contract" first, and to securities secondarily.
See pic.

>you don't understand that transactions ARE contracts
Source that all transactions are contracts lmao

>>53966093
LOL you are the dumbest motherfucker ever hahaha I bet you're ChainlinkGod, only that idiot argues like this when he's in the wrong.
>The Howey test is used to determine whether something IS a contract
^^ that's what you said, not an investment contract, not a security, A CONTRACT.
>"For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract..."
^^ literally the first statement in the ruling. Note INVESTMENT CONTRACT, not a contract, not any contract, but a specific type of contract that meets multiple criteria.
Do you see the difference between A CONTRACT and an INVESTMENT CONTRACT? Or are you going to continue to be dense.

>>53952254
https://xrpl.org/use-an-escrow-as-a-smart-contract.html
https://write.as/xumm/xrpl-labs-is-working-on-the-transaction-hooks-amendment-for-the-xrp-ledger
here you go anon, two ways to create an oracle on the XRPL. One is automated, one is not. Honestly, when hooks arrive, the XRPL is going to be able to do anything that is needed natively. Plus, if flare actually becomes useful and gets its head out of its ass then it natively has oracles, and interchain communication, plus tradfi connections as well. Flare is absolutely insane with how it works, although I am not convinced any longer that it will be the piece of the puzzle were looking for (mainly because of its launch fuck up).

>>53966195
>two ways to create an oracle on the XRPL
Thanks for agreeing with my post.

>>53966177
>^^ that's what you said, not an investment contract, not a security, A CONTRACT.
The Howey test is used to determine whether something is an investment contract.
I said "contract" because that's the term he used.

An investment contract is indeed a contract, it's literally in the word.

>>53966215
So you admit to using the wrong terminology lol A.k.a you were wrong! Just say it anon, why waste so much time with stupid arguments when you can just admit that you got it wrong.
An investment contract is a contract, but not all contracts are investment contracts. Hence why the ruling uses the specific words INVESTMENT CONTRACT. You however just used the word contract, which is obviously wrong.

>>53966259
The only way I used the wrong terminology is if an investment contract isn't a contract.

>>53966195
All of the documents that have been coming from the banks and government about CBDCs directly quote many things in the XRP whitepaper or things that brad/david have said. The descriptions of the systems describe what the XRPL is capable of (and by extension flare).
>>53966215
Well you are completely correct, without crypto having tentacles out in the real world its just a video game. Having whatever money system we use be able to talk to and listen to real world events and info is the obvious next evolution to our information money systems. I dont believe that chainlink is going to be used for CBDCs though, I think it will be a retail level solution for things. There hasnt been near enough testing of anything chainlink related, especially not CCIP for banks to feel comfortable switching things over to it in the time period things seem to be happening in. If we were 10 years out maybe, but were likely months away and only one thing fits the bill.

>>53966267
Nope, you tried to define all contracts as securities which is WRONG! Here let me say it for you again, WRONG WRONG WRONG. Just admit you were wrong, it's literally that easy.

>>53966320
Is an investment contract a contract?
Yes?
Then I'm literally right.

The only reason I didn't specify INVESTMENT contract, is because I was making a point against someone who tried to say XRP isn't a security because there was no contract.

>>53966390
He’s trying to bury the posts where you schooled Rippletards on securities law.

>>53966390
kek no you're wrong, even the ruling states is explicitly.
>"For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract..."
^^ see, INVESTMENT CONTRACT, not A CONTRACT. No matter how you try to split hairs you got it WRONG! Hahaha you're wrong CLG, you don't know shit, and you will suck my balls at Smartcon. Remember, I am always 10x smarter than you are. Maybe you should go back to arguing with Chris Blec about multisigs lol

>>53966537
An investment contract is a contract.

>>53963154
Algorand is working with 18 nations on CBDC and already has 2 confirmed (Italy, Marshall Islands).

>>53966297
>If we were 10 years out maybe, but were likely months away
There is no way Swift's CBDC platform is coming out this year. Plenty of time to test with CCIP

>>53966556
But not all contracts are investment contracts, so you're wrong.
How does it feel CLG? Does it eat away at you that you got proven to be incorrect? Bet it tears you apart, knowing that someone out there has far more knowledge than you.

>>53966653
>But not all contracts are investment contracts
Which I never said.

>bunch of coping bagholders splitting hairs and trying to figure which scam is the worst
you are BOTH HOLDING DEAD ALTCOINS
STICK TO YOUR CONTAINMENT THREADS AND ECHO CHAMBERS AND FUCK OFF NOBODY WANTS YOUR WORTHLESS BAGS

>>53966697
>comes into a chainlink thread and is upset people are talking about chainlink

>>53966728
fuck off with your filter evading trash threads bitch
there's no explicit chainlink reference in the OP whatsoever, your kike tricks aren't working here

>>53966697
>*clap* stop *clap* heckin *clap* spammerino *clap* chuds *clap*
link board, redditor
now go back to YOUR containment thread

>>53966759
no such thing as "link board" bagholder
off to your discord linkmuhrine server

>>53966665
>The Howey test is used to determine whether something IS a contract
>"For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract..."
^^ Oh but you did, see no matter how you try to wriggle and squirm you got yourself caught. The fact that your ego is so big that you cannot even admit when you're wrong just shows how much it must hurt you to be constantly BTFO.

>>53966773
go drown yourself you worthless retard
>>>/out/

>fuck off with your filter evading trash threads bitch

>>53966773
stick to bagholding attorney hogan videos and extravod and bcb hopium

>>53966804
eat shit bagholding mongoloid

>>53966773
In no way am I implying all contracts are investment contracts lmao.

You on the other hand claimed all transactions are contracts, still waiting for source on that.

>>53966823
off yourself worthless scamming african shill

>>53966766
>no such thing as "link board" bagholder
there is, it's called /biz/, nigger

>>53966847
>reeeee this is /our/ board reeee
gtfo back to your discord meme center disgusting pajeet

can't wait for you retards to rope together
>EOY 2023
>shitLINK: $0.666
>XRPeepee: $0.039

>>53966608
kek, You assume that swift is going to be chosen.
>>53951033
lol, I was thinking that the document that OP is posting was the experiments that were just ran by the ny FED on CBDCs. Swift just took the experiments that the fed did, and tried to shoehorn their solutions into their findings. Anons, if you want to know exactly whats going on read these:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/nyic/project-cedar-phase-one-report.pdf
https://www.bis.org/publ/othp47.pdf
But basically, SWIFT was not chosen to go further in the fed experiments (as far as I can tell). Swifts answer to crypto was to have bank managers have to process things faster (they called cracking the whip, a new system).

>>53966863
the only one "reeeee"ing here is you, faggot lol

>>53966890
why do you keep bumping this thread, idiot?

>>53966823
You literally said the purpose of the Howey test was to determine if there was a contract. The ruling specifically states "For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract...". The only way for both statements to be correct is if all contracts = investment contracts. Since that's not true then either your statement or the ruling must be incorrect. Are you trying to say the ruling is incorrect? lol knowing that you're CLG this is probably what you'd try and say haha
>You on the other hand claimed all transactions are contracts, still waiting for source on that.
"In business law, a transaction is an event associated with business dealings conducted between two or more parties that involve the formation and performance of an obligation or contract."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/transaction

>>53966986
What swift is doing (I know its a bit difference because they are the current settlement layer for banks and so have some authority on the topic) is the equivalent of MCD grabbing the 2 links I posted and figuring out how to make their hamburgers into the new bank settlement layer, then trying to tell everyone that their expirments were a success and they now have 3 models to choose from (the mcflurry model, the fry model, and the hamburger model)...sure the words might make sense and sound good...but it means nothing if the fed isnt looking at them. swift is trying desperately to cling to its position.

>>53967054
>You literally said the purpose of the Howey test was to determine if there was a contract.
Yes, specifically an investment contract.
Because an investment contract is a 'contract'.

>>53967034
shut the fuck up coping nigger, your bags are trash
>>53967054
>blogpost as to why XRP isn't worthless
off to /xsg/ you go, nobody is touching your dumpster fire shitcoin

>>53966986
>kek, You assume that swift is going to be chosen.
Seems like a higher chance than XRP being chosen don't you think?

>>53967083
or else what, christcuck? you'll cry?

>>53967080
But you didn't say investment contract, you just said "contract". So you were wrong. Just admit it CLG, you're nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.

>>53967205
>But you didn't say investment contract, you just said "contract".
Investment contracts are contracts.
There was a reason I said what I said, I was using the XRP shill's own words against him.

>>53967233
But not all contracts are investment contracts, hence why the ruling specifically uses the words "investment contract". There was no reason, you just got it wrong. Yet you squirm and wriggle like the worm you are to try and convince yourself that if you just split hairs hard enough you can somehow be right. You were wrong CLG. 100% WRONG.

>>53967284
>not all contracts are investment contracts
I never said this.
I said investment contracts are contracts.

>>53967315
>The Howey test is used to determine whether something IS a contract
>"For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract..."
You tried to argue both these statements are correct, but they can't be unless all contracts = investment contracts.
Round and round we go CLG, you splitting hairs and twisting yourself all in the effort to avoid admitting you were wrong.

>>53967367
>both these statements are correct
They literally are, because investment contracts are contracts.

>>53967384
>>53967367
>How to slide an interesting thread

>>53967384
>The Howey test is used to determine whether something IS a contract
^^ if this is accurate, then all transactions are sales of securities. Buy some bread? Security. Grab some milk? Security. Stop off at McDonalds? Security. As soon as you prove there is an offer and acceptance, it's a security under your statement.
Which is clearly wrong since the ruling itself states that there is additional criteria; namely "whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party" which distinguishes the individuality of an investment contract a.k.a a security, from all other contracts. Now they wouldn't need this if they were just testing to see if there was a contract formed.
A.k.a you're wrong lol

>>53967473
Investment contracts simply are contracts. My statement (while unspecific) was factually correct.

>>53967097
I believe so. It seems though that people are getting very confused about things. For instance: Swift *could* end up being the ones who implement the chosen system...and that chosen system could still be the XRPL (or a private XRPL). Or Ripple could step in and become the new swift (company) and implement things themselves. Swift is the name of both the corporation, and the system. What is pretty clear so far is that there is going to be more than one piece to this system.

>>53967534
>It's leviOsa, not levioSA!

>>53967534
No your statement was wrong.
>CLG: The elephant test checks for if it is an animal
>Me: No it checks to see if it's an elephant, see here is a snake
>CLG: Is the snake an animal?
>Me: Yes
>CLG: Then the snake is an elephant
>Me: No it's not, a snake is a snake, the elephant test is testing for elephants
>CLG: What I said is factually correct although unspecific, the snake is an elephant

>>53967628
>>CLG: The elephant test checks for if it is an animal
>>Me: No it checks to see if it's an elephant
An elephant is an animal.
The first statement is correct.

>>53967643
>CLG: What I said is factually correct although unspecific, the snake is an elephant
Congrats, you passed the elephant test lol

>>53967741
>the snake is an elephant
In your example, I'm saying "the elephant is an animal".

>>53967774
But that would be the animal test, not the elephant test. See the difference?
Would a bear pass the elephant test? A bear is an animal.
>CLG: Yes a bear is an elephant too, all animals are elephants, my statement is factually correct although unspecific

>>53967805
Depending on context, it's perfectly apt to say an elephant test is an animal test.
Because an elephant is an animal, after all.

>>53967852
So when you're testing for elephants you only need to test for if the object is an animal, and if it passes then animal test then you can automatically assume that the object must be an elephant. Great reasoning there CLG! Stunning deductions!
>CLG: To determine if something is an elephant, I just test to see if it is an animal. I tested a snake, it's an elephant. I tested a bear, also an elephant. In fact, all animals I tested are actually elephants. There are no other animals in the world apart from elephants. My statements are factually correct although unspecific

>>53967906
The XRP shill said:
>you need a contract for the Howey test to apply

This is akin to saying
>you need an animal for the Elephant test to apply

Which is of course the opposite of the point he was trying to make, because he was trying to say the Howey test does NOT apply.
I pointed this out to him, using his own wording against him.

>>53967966
I don't care about your argument with some other guy. What you said was wrong, and you've spent the last couple of hours twisting and squirming and contorting yourself in every effort to try and convince yourself that what you said was somehow accurate. The fact that I nailed you on it and you have finally resorted to the age old "b-but I was just pretending to be retarded" excuse just shows how much your ego means to you. You should have just admitted that what you said was wrong and we could have all moved on. But that's too much for you to handle, so I'm just going to keep hammering you over and over until you break

>>53968074
>tl;dr EXTRAVODD JEREMY HOGAN AND DEATON ALL AGREE THAT RIPPLE IS WINNING SEC ABOUT TO BE BTFO RELISTING ON ALL EXCHANGES SOON MOON SOON BUY NOW OR FOREVER BE POOR

>>53968074
>I don't care about your argument with some other guy
You should, because that's what you got involved in.

>>53968110
Whatever gay lover's spat you have with someone else is your problem, not mine. Just don't post blatant misinformation to try and defend your position, and then try to create an elaborate web of hair splitting to justify it.

>>53968156
>your problem, not mine
Says the faggot who just spent hours arguing semantics from an argument he wasn't even part of lmao

>>53968182
Oh, I didn't realise that a thread on 4chan was actually your own private grindr DM's. Do you often have gay sex chats on 4chan, where you post incorrect information and then spend hours defending it in a fruitless pursuit of maintaining your fragile ego? I can help you if you want, I will let you lick my balls while I humiliate you like the little bitch you are lol

>>53968232
>you post incorrect information
My interlocutor was doing that, I simply used his own words against him.

>>53968255
Oooo "interlocutor", boy aren't you getting fancy now. Is this your attempt at sounding intelligent and redeeming yourself?

>>53966986
Swift is more about interbank commerce, isn't it? Wouldn't fed experiments be more intrabank? Seems like swift wouldn't really be relevant.

Like if I'm tasked with revamping the transportation infrastructure within a city...it wouldn't make much sense for me to focus on airplanes.

>>53968545
Swift is everything. Youre also thinking of interbank and intrabank wrong. The fed experiments were for testing out what platform would be best to host CBDCs on.
>Seems like swift wouldn't really be relevant.
This is my main point. Swift is so outdated, when they first heard about crypto taking over and wanting to eat the bank settlement business, they decided to "upgrade" their systems to show that they could remain competitive with the blazing fast speed and safety that crypto provides. However, swift didnt get a bunch of devs together to create a new system...they just put a memo out to bank managers telling them to make sure to process things in 3 days instead of 5. Then they went ahead and told everyone that their "new tech" was twice the speed that it used to be! Then it came out that they just had the people work a bit faster, nothing to do with new tech....theyre antiquated and were too resistant to crypto for too long, its basically too late for them to get in the game and be the chosen one.

This thread is a total shit show