/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>59380621

This has literally nothing to do with Chainlink.

>>59380629

>>59380632
Stop spammimg this shit.

>>59380629

>>59380621
not sure but I think sergey is on to something

Hedera
cap this

>>59380629
>>59380639

>>59380647
That's not him.

>>59380637

>>59380632

Op here

This isn’t a link thread.

>>59380645

Read this

>>59380621
sounds comfy

>>59380647
Brian Armstrong too

>>59380629
OH NO NO
THE
hammerheads
of
biz

>>59380653
It literally is, theres even wei li on the right there

BREAKING: kek fuddies

tokenization, both fungible and non-fungible, are the future and the fact that pop culture shits on it tells me that institutions want to keep normies from getting rich while they keep building it

>>59380629

>link trannies thinking it's about them
OH NO NO NO
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59380647
>pointy anglo nose
>not larry’s bulbous round jewish nose
Anon, i…

So which shit should I buy?

>>59380930
LINK

>>59380621
>>59380930
>>59380666
This is an XRP post and I'm all for it

>>59380932
>>59380950
Anons, fucking decide already

>>59380997
Son... the insiders are already decided.

>>59380950

He’s the Co-Founder of QNT and on the advisory boards of XRP and Hedera

>>59381049
Wow, I've doubled my money in less than a month. Lol.
QNT is fucking awesome tho.

>>59380666
The name Paolo Tasca isn't in this report though.

>>59380637
as opposed to what exactly? So this thread is spam, and the rest of /biz/ is ..? Go on I'll wait

>>59381041
QNT has any banks signed up? XRP already has Bank of America and more..

This is actually extremely bearish for crapto currency companies, there’s no reason to buy vaporware coins on chain anymore when you could just buy actual solid cashflow producing assets on chain instead :) It will certainly help the bankers margins though

>>59380629
It’s for SupraOracles

>>59381070
Hedera is in the document I shared
>>59380666

>>59381060
Awesome

>>59381085

Yes.

Right now

>>59380621
This is good for GME

>>59380621
>>59380666
Excuse me anon, what do these two documents have to do with each other, if anything?

I used to get imposter syndrome holding crypto. Why am I the only one in my family or friend group that actually knows what this is, enough to describe it and teach someone? Why does it feel like all the news is out in the open and nobody is paying attention? Do I really deserve all of this money because I clicked a few buttons years ago?
But now, I could not give less of a shit. The psychological damage they put linkies through has been insane and to watch EVERYONE bend the knee is truly the most crazy feeling ever.
Assblaster underestimated.

>>59381095
>Hedera is in the document I shared
Where?

>>59381138
>>59381049
What does the QNT chart have to do with anything?

What the fuck is this thread even.

>>59381174

This anon:
>>59380645

Mentioned Hedera. So I shared a document that would interested him.

>>59381185
Yeah I also didn't find any reference to that guy in the OP document. Maybe I missed something. Maybe Paolo has nothing to do with this?

>>59381185
Second paragraph
>>59380666

>>59381200
I think OP done lost his marbles

>>59381198
Ok sorry, I misunderstood the second document as related to the first then.

>>59381204
That snippet has nothing to do with the doc in OP.

>>59381200

I was responding to anon below
>>59380645

>>59380930

https://www.dtcc.com/dtcc-connection/articles/2024/may/16/smart-nav-pilot-report-bringing-trusted-data-to-the-blockchain-ecosystem
https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-banking-capital-markets-announcements/
https://chainlinktoday.com/brazils-central-bank-to-leverage-chainlink-ccip-in-key-cbdc-project/
https://blog.chain.link/tokenized-real-world-assets/

>>59381224
This has nothing to do with Chainlink.

>>59381210
I was responding to another anon who mentioned Hedera.

wtf why is this blocked
swift.com/news-events/press-releases/sw

>>59381086
Not this thread, I meant that stupid image.

>>59381224
This has literally nothing to do with Chainlink.

>>59381227
How the fuck do you do tokenized real world assets without an oracle network, retard?

-unlocks-potential-token

>>59381245
this image?

t-unlocks-potential-tokeni

>>59381248
I heard XRP has oracles now, so Chainlink is not needed.

swift-unlocks-potential-token

try to type tokenization with an s instead of z

>>59381275
Chainlink is the gold standard of decentralized oracle networks. Nothing is even close.

>>59381262
You're not funny.

>>59381289
LINK doesn't do settlements, so banks won't be using it. Guess what chain does settlements?

>>59381294
i didnt make the meme. why does it make you so angry? ive seen you sperg out about it in a few threads

>>59380621
>more buzzwords that just mean "the poor get poorer, the rich get richer" by making pretend money for the anointed ones
I pray I'm struck by lightning and die in a flash everyday

>>59381284
guys type TOKENI5ATION

why would they ban this spelling? it hasnt been spammed by a bot
it's only used by professional sources like swift, look at the archive
what the actual fuck is going on

>>/biz/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=%22tokeni5ation%22
replace the five

why would they ban this when it's the single biggest future trend for blockchain

>its not being suppressed by shadowy forces, just take your meds

>>59381315
Tokenization tokenization. Not banned. Take your meds.

>>59381315
It gets marked as spam

>>59381224
>>59381227
Anons I am serious, stahp, just tell me what to buy.

>>59381405
Research

>>59381405
BTC LINK APU

>>59381248
Band protocol. You’ve been warned.

>>59381422
I hold BTC FTM APU CHEESE
I think of buying some ai slop, people are shilling it (dsync, xpai, Pai) and link, xrp or hbar. That's why I am asking.

>>59381458
It depends on your timeframe. AI shitcoins may (or may not) pump a lot while the bull run lasts but will giga dump when the music stops. LINK is the most important project in crypto so you can hold it forever and be comfy. HBAR is interesting as it is the fastest and cheapest IIRC but I personally don't bet on any particular L1 because I don't know which chains will win and which will get rekt (too hard to predict IMO). Between ETH SOL AVAX HBAR and banks' own private chains the competition is fierce. Also adding a bit of memecoin exposure (DOGE/PEPE/APU/XRP) might be good for diversification as those tend to pump when BTC and LINK are chillin. Just my 2 cents.

Attention all linkies, baggies and fourth industrial resolution shills reading this

Have you no shame, no decency, no morals or soul? If you stay your course and don't repent and turn away from your grievous sins, your souls are consigned to hell in the afterlife for your despicable, disgusting and evil acts in this life.

No one likes you, appreciates you, looks up to you, respects you, or can even stand you. Everyone hates and despises you and has nothing but disdain and contempt for you, even the genocidal tyrants whose eager enforcers and accessories in genocide and crimes against humanity you are. You are despicable evil. You are revolting to all decency and morality. You are a disgrace and a stain on history. You are foot soldiers and cruel attack dogs of murderous despots. Your names and memory will live in infamy. You will be pointed to as examples of the worst dregs of humanity

Linkies will stand trial at Nuremberg 2.0 and be hanged for your heinous complicity and accessory to genocide and crimes against humanity as well as your loyalty to genocidal tyrants.
Everyone alive to witness Nuremberg 2 will cheer your sentencing and rejoice at your execution. No one will come visit your graves, which will be nameless, or lay flowers for you there, not even your spouses, parents or children. They will be ashamed to have been related to you, married to you, descended from you or to have borne your name.

Stop. Think. Reconsider. Repent. Denounce Chainlink and ask for forgiveness for all the evil you have already committed.

Apologize to and ask for forgiveness from the innocent anons you've been oppressing, repressing and persecuting.
Resign or reverse course and help the resistance against the Great Reset which is unfolding while there is still time to make a difference and before you have even more innocent blood on your hands

>>59381227
>>59381245
>>59381275
>>59381294
What about this image, fudgroids?

>>59381322
Tokenization

>>59381595

Not sure why

>>59381604
Tokenization.

>>59381625
Yep

Oh shit you're right. You can't wrote It with an s

>>59381637
Doesn’t matter.

Looks like they want a private permissioned chain for tokenized treasuries (pic related). XRP and Hedera are public permissionless chains so they're probably not involved.

Theres multiple mentions of the DTCC Digital Asset Securities Ecosystem which they call a key ongoing project for tokenization. We know Link is a part of this so Link is at least indirectly involved.

They also list interoperability between diverse networks to be a key requirement which could mean CCIP. The report doesn't go into enough detail about how the potential infrastucture would look to get a clear answer though.

Based on their conclusions I would guess they're going to partner with some private bank chain made by the BIS or DTCC or SWIFT and use CDBCs as the underlying currency for the tokenized treasuries. Too early to say for certain if any crypto is actually used in all this but based on the connections i could find Link is the only project i can see being even slightly involved.

>>59381733
slide 115 mentions multiple link partners
>Franklin Templeton
>DTCC
>JP Morgan

>>59381604
Jannies hate Europeans

>>59381799
Okay

>>59381733
Checked. I think that all FMI players will use permissioned DLTs which in practice don't make a difference in terms of truth over trust vs the centralized database that they are now. How do you think the DTCC will work when they tokenize bonds and stocks? Like when you buy a tokenized stock from a broker what will be the sequencen of events? I guess that putting securities in DLT rails even permissioned means that they can then be transacted accross chains. Also FMI may not use public L1s but for banks it's another story, eg UBS test ETH and Arbitrum (for the transfer agent contract), but that not treasuries which is the topic of discussion.

>>59380663
oh but it is sweetie.

>>59382033
Which page should I be looking at?

>>59382096
121 in the PDF you link in the OP.

>>59382141
Thanks.

Can you define Chainlink for me.

>>59380621
LINK isnt even a ledger you morons
this literally has nothing to do with LINK. delusional baggies

>>59382141
Page 121 below in image
>>59381733

>>59382177
>Can you define Chainlink for me
What?

>>59382195

Is Chainlink a distributed ledger?

tokenization

>>59382215
No. What's your point my nigga?

>>59382215
>Retard didnt read the text correctly and now makes a false assumption to base his attack on
Esl

>>59382215
Why the fuck are you people like this. Every other shitcoin on this board, "hurr buy or stay poor", anything about chainlink, quick call the interrogation team we need to examine everything with fine print.

Makes it too obvious.

>>59382239
Its real. Guys what the fuck is going on, im scared. Are they going to let me make it?

>>59382246
>why do people like to bully the most shilled coin on this board

>>59382241
Trying to see your perspective

Is Chainlink permissionless?

What is Chainlink?

>>59382244
I did read it. I asked for a definition of chainlink to understand your perspective.

>>59382270
My honest perspective:
Chainlink is an oracle.
Oracles tell the truth.
Admire oracles.

>>59380629
Chainlink must got the season pass for how rent free it is up there huh.

>>59382283
Chainlink is an oracle. OK.

Does page 121 refer to Oracles?

>>59382302
Look, if ur gotcha is they dont say say chainlink and none of those words (blockchain, dlt, permissioned, permissionless) have actually to do with chainlink, please just google the sentence TCP/IP + chainlink and then read through that paragraph again what ASAP is and then tell me that Link got that weird terminology right 2 yeary back by coincidence
>>59381912

>>59382302
Of course my nigga. How do you think tokenized assets will work when on they are DLTs rails (even permissioned)? They need data and Chainlink will provide that. The fact that they don't want permisionless DLTs implies that ETH, XRP and HBAR are out (in terms of settlement). Then we could argue if for interop CCIP or Quant will be used. But for data Chainlink is the man, so yes your document IS about Chainlink. Take a look at the recent tokenized*ed funds experiments by Swift and you will see.

>>59382338
Chainlink isn’t an internet protocol.

>>59382343
Alright thanks anon.

The document page 121 says:


Public Permissioned + Permissionless X no
Private Permissionless X no
Private Permissioned *yes

—-
Ripple is Permissioned Enterprise
Ethereum is Public Permissioned

——

The Private Permissioned Blockchain with the green tick, isn’t defined on page 121 as in existence yet, right?

>Permissioned blockchain: Can offer scalable performance due to the controlled environment and optimized consensus rules. This makes them suitable for enterprise applications requiring high throughput. Permissionless blockchain: Faces scalability challenges due to resource-intensive consensus mechanism options.20 Aug 2024

>>59382388
Anon, if your source is picrel, let me tell you that it's plain wrong as for example it says BTC is permissioned. WTF?
>The Private Permissioned Blockchain with the green tick, isn’t defined on page 121 as in existence yet, right?
I think private permissioned is an implicit way of saying that FMI like the DTCC and also Central Banks are planning on making their own private permissioned DLTs which will be fully controlled and visible by them only.
I said in a post earlier ITT that this obviously is bad from the perspective of truth over trust but you and I know that those satanic niggers won't give up any control and use ETH or something like that.
Hedera IIRC is public no? Not a blockchain but a DLT (hashgraph) yes. And I think it's permissioned but in plans to eventually open the network so It also would not qualify.

>>59382472
not letting me post

Internet Protocol

Eth

>>59381912
sers. i am retarded. wtf is ASAP and SATP? are they trying to steal chainlinks code and shadowfork so we dont make it?

>>59382530
LINK is blockchain agnostic, newfren.
https://chain.link/education-hub/blockchain-agnostic
Also you said that XRP is permissioned and that's wrong too. The XRPL is permissionless, it just uses a different consensus mechanism vs BTC or ETH but it's not permissioned.

they're clearly talking about a private bank chain in development. the interesting part is how it will connect. a lot of the language used is similar to what we've heard from sergey. anyone remember BBC chain? kek

>>59382564
“Ripple operates a semi-permissioned consensus protocol designed to expedite transactions on its decentralized blockchain”

Do you agree with that?

>>59382616
Not really.
>XRP is a digital asset that’s native to the XRP Ledger—an open-source, permissionless and decentralized blockchain technology
https://xrpl.org/about/xrp

ripple is irrelevant. this is a link thread, stop derailing it

>>59380628
he knows doesn't he?

>>59382560
SATP is IETF task force grade protocol

Standard Asset Transfer Protocol

https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/satp/about/

IETF behind TCPIP and HTTP

The Internet Engineering Taskforce

>>59380632
kek saved

>>59382585
>they're clearly talking about a private bank chain
But this is not about banks per se, it's about govs, central banks and FMIs like the DTCC and Euroclear. Although in principles yes it's a similar things. I will say though that banks do show interest in using public DLTs considering most of their trials have used Ethereum or some ETH L2.
>anyone remember BBC chain
Do tell more?
>>59382628
I know XRP is an irrelevante memecoin, but the OP seems well intentioned so I don't mind helping him out.

>>59382623
>“Ripple net is permissioned, it’s blockchain technology, but not a blockchain.”

Agree with this?

>>59380696
faceblind retard. He jaw looks nothing like Fink and he doesn't have that many wrinkles.

>>59382530
>>59382550
>>59382557

Link token

wow this board sucks now cant have a LINK thread without conversations being shit all over and derailed

>>59382657
I don't get it, are you fishing for a gotcha? The XRPL (L stands for LEDGER as in decentralized LEDGER technology i.e. DLTs, the things your OP PDF is talking about in page 121) is permissionless.

>>59382693
It’s not a link thread, it’s a discussion about the document

Link, XRP, Hbar fans are free to debate on the document

>>59382693
Regarding LINK, what do you wanna talk about fren? I'll talk to you about anything I'm bored as fuck.

>>59382668
>ignoring the earlobes, hair and glasses

>>59382695

Page 121 says permissionless is No (public or private)

On discussions elsewhere I am reading
>“Ripple net is permissioned, it’s blockchain technology, but not a blockchain.”

So XRP is permissionless

But Ripplenet according to this image:
>>59382388

Is permissioned enterprise blockchain

The quote above in green argues that Ripplenet is a technology not a blockchain.

So that’s all up for querying.

Some say CCIP is not an Internet Protocol but a technology as well.

Do you think CCIP is a /real/ internet protocol or a cross chain protocol?

>>59382716
Would you like to know something kookie but cool?

>>59382738
The image is from an overledger document, so it really depends on if you believe their word

>>59382704
There is nothing to debate. Its all in bad faith.
>>59382716
Sorry fren I just thought i would read anons talking about the topic. I expected too much.

>>59382752
Why is it in bad faith?

>>59382738
>according to this image
I wouldn't put much faith in that image if I were you because it also states that Bitcoin is permissioned, which is patently false.
>Do you think CCIP is a /real/ internet protocol or a cross chain protocol?
Mind clarifying what you mean by real internet protocol?
>>59382752
I tried talking about the topic here >>59381895 but no one took interest.
Tell me fren, how do you think the DTCC system will work once bonds and stocks are tokenized?

>>59380666
I'd love to read that, but I'm a video game addicted gooner with cooked dopamine receptors. Qrd?

>>59380678
>>59380695
>>59380654
>>59380632
>>59380628
So sorry linkies, better luck next life, maybe you'll be reborn as something better than a jeet, a caterpillar perhaps?

>>59382768
>>59382769
you tell me

>>59382642
this makes ccip irrelevant, doesnt it?

>>59382769
>Mind clarifying what you mean by real internet protocol?

Was an IETF task force deployed on it?

Is CCIP a technology specific to chainlink being used, rather than a Universal Standard extant regardless of the existence of Chainlink?

>>59382800
Irrelevant how?

>>59382813
>>59382813
>Is CCIP a technology specific to chainlink being used
No, because the Chainlink network is decentralized. The D in DON stands for DECENTRALIZED oracle network. Regarding CCIP, the users interact with the nops (node operators). Chainlink Labs not needed.
On the topic of standards, perhaps you are interested to know that Swift is the most important entity regarding the definition of messaging standards that banks all over the world use. After all, Swift IS the banks.
https://www.swift.com/standards
Guess who is the darling of Swift?

>>59382585
>>59382654
BBCA chain

>>59382854
>Mind clarifying what you mean by real internet protocol?

Was an IETF task force deployed on it?

>>59382905
You didn't answer to anything I said in >>59382854 which makes me suspect you are arguing in bath faith?
Please explain why should I care about those niggers at the IETF.
I'd rather care about what the niggers at SWIFT define as messaging standard, after all SWIFT = ALL THE BANKS. Banks are the ones who manage all value in the world. Regarding protocols, of course CCIP is a protocol. The P stands for PROTOCOL.
>In networking, a protocol is a standardized set of rules for formatting and processing data. Protocols enable computers to communicate with one another.
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/network-layer/what-is-a-protocol/

>>59382949
Well, to debate in good faith.

The name:
CCIP
Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol

Isn’t the same as TCPIP

TCPIP being adopted universally required the validation of the IETF.

Right?

>>59382965
CCIP is a protocol.
The P stands for PROTOCOL.
>In networking, a protocol is a standardized set of rules for formatting and processing data. Protocols enable computers to communicate with one another.
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/network-layer/what-is-a-protocol/
A standard is whatever technology everyone ends up using when the dust settles. Considering that Swift is a cooperative of pretty much all the banks in the world, whatever protocol Swift picks for interoperability becomes the standard. Swift picked Chainlink (*), which means CCIP is most likely the protocol that will become the standard. Swift is the entity that defines all banking standards, not the IETF. You seem to have been misinformed, like when you believed that the BTC was permissioned.
*Actually, Swift has been working with Chainlink for so many years that you could actually consider CLL as somewhat part of Swift. They developed CCIP together.

>>59382992
No the IETF are the counsel of Standards

>The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a standards organization for the Internet and is responsible for the technical standards that make up the internet

CCIP was not developed by the IETF, so it’s dishonest to say it’s an internet protocol.

Right?

>>59383024
You seem confused, anon. The I in CCIP stands for INTEROPERABILITY, not for Internet. Interoperability is what we are talking about. Considering that govs, CBs, and FMIs want to use private permissioned DLTs, ETH, HBAR, and XRP are out. Chainlink will be used for data because tokenized assets requiere a shit ton of data. Then the last piece of the puzzle is interop. Swift (i.e. ALL THE BANKS) will use CCIP. Swift defines banking standards. Which means CCIP will be the standard.

Just to make things clear:

Even if they wanted to, there's not a single thing those niggers at the IETF could do to stop Swift from using Chainlink.

Do you understand?

>>59383067
>Even if they wanted to, there's not a single thing those niggers at the IETF could do to stop Swift from using Chainlink.

That’s true. However SWIFT don’t define standards of internet protocols for web3.

Right?

>>59383103
We are talking about interoperability protocols.
Not about internet protocols.
Swift defines banking standards.
https://www.swift.com/standards
Swift developed CCIP with Chainlink.
All the banks will use CCIP.
The IETF can go suck a dick.
So no, you are not right.

>>59383145
Alright so you agree CCIP is not the internet Standard which scales to Web3

It’s a cross-chain interoperability protocol which can be considered in the way TCPIP was adopted as an internet protocol despite other protocols existing at that time because TCPIP was given the IETF greenlight and was therefore adopted by government/ military

Since the IETF set the standards, not SWIFT

>>59383187
Which cannot *

>>59383145
>All the banks will use CCIP

CCIP isn’t Central Bank grade technology.

Oracles are not Central Bank Trust level for direct communication.

>>59383187

One test factor

Would military use CCIP?

>>59380621
We are moving full-scale ahead towards digital identity and currency, eliminating cash and privacy in the process. There was just a huge Chinese hack of US telecommunications
https://archive.is/QMjF8

It won't be long now until all of your wealth and biometric data and Internet search history is all stored in the Fed coin data spread and then hacked.

>>59383309
Our digital identity has already been fully assessed by AI

I feel ok
Probably some moments I’m not proud of

But the tech you are describing is over 20 years old in assessment

>>59380621
Amazing. Sergey can now dump even more tokens on his linky pay pigs. I hope to see him even fatter in future pictures!

>>59380645
Put me in the screencap

>>59383187
>Since the IETF set the standards, not SWIFT
Wrong.

Swift defines the standards.

Swift picked CCIP.

Quadrillions will flow through CCIP.

The IETF cannot do a single thing about it.

Right?

>>59383275
>Would military use CCIP
Quadrillions will flow through CCIP. Everyone will use CCIP.
>>59383246
>CCIP isn’t Central Bank grade technology
Right, I guess you should let the Central Bank of Brazil know. Hurry up! Go tell en!

>>59383397
IETF defines the standard.

Ask yourself, would Military select CCIP for ASSET transfer?

*turns to look you in the eye*

Would they?

>>59383423
>IETF defines the standard
Wrong. Swift does.
>No bro, Swift and the DTCC will use CCIP to transact quadrillions because CCIP is the most secure protocol, but the millitary cannot use bro.

>>59383433
What is the transaction per second of CCIP anon?

>>59383441
LOL.
Now I know who you are.
You are the guy from some days ago that spammed "how many tps".
We ended up LARPing as as Jesse and Walt from Breaking Bad kek.
Remember? Good times. That got a chuckle out of me.

>>59383453
That thread was hilarious

>>59383453
You knew who I was as soon as we first engaged anon.

Do you think Military Grade is the tippity top if technology among us?

>>59380621
>baggies think they're referring to LINK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19X-g5jHRzI

>>59380621
>But what does this mean?

What is this to the future of cryptocurrency?

>>59380629
^
>>59380666
>reed dis.
Word salad, don't care.

>>59383881

>>59383881

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzj-GlRLZFU

I think the thread needs a new direction.
They’re clearly gearing up to release a cbdc—a one world currency like all the conspiracy theories. Do you think they’d use link or xrp or whatever or create a new tailor-made coin and somehow get everyone to shift all their assets onto that chain, because there can only be one currency, or pull off a great reset through a manufactured depression perhaps and promise things will be better but only if you let us put this chip in your brain? What do you think guys?

>>59381087
Nah, the network value increases when more things run on top.

>>59380621
>TOKENIZATION
At some point you guys will learn

>>59384096
The one-world currency of the conspiracy theorists is going to have to compete with a payment abstraction layer where you can pay for anything with anything, anywhere.

>>59384096
>They’re clearly gearing up to release a cbdc—a one world currency
No. This report is not about CDBCs, it IS about tokeni5ation.
>Do you think they’d use link or xrp or whatever or create a new tailor-made coin and somehow get everyone to shift all their assets onto that chain, because there can only be one currencyy
My nigga they are talking about interoperability because it's clear at this point that there will be hundreds if not thousands of relevant DLTs (both permissionless and permissioned). There will never be one currency or one ledger to rule them all, that's the point. In fact if you kept up with the recent talks you would know that different ledgers wil most likely be needed for different jurisdictions, assets classes, banks, and so on. Every institution wants to partake in tokeni5ation but they all want to keep control.
>and promise things will be better but only if you let us put this chip in your brain
Schitzo. Don't make me tap the sign. Nothing ever happens.
>>59385014
>ONDO
If you carefully read your picrel you will realize that that section is talking about tokeni5ed treasuries funds, in which case yes ETH AVAX ONDO and so on may be used (eg the recent UBS experiment used ETH for settlements and Arbitrum for the transfer agent smart contract). But for tokenized bonds per see, the treasury may want a private permissioned DLT. Is ONDO like that? I'm not an expert in that topic.

>>59385426
doesn't ondo use chainlink? sorry I'm not a tech guy

>>59385617
I have no idea.

>>59380621
>Doesn't matter Bitcoin to $4783

FDIC said no more crypto to banks.

>>59383509
is this how you jews subtly tell your other jews to sell

>>59385924
No, OP is a literal schitzo I think. At least he is a Gataca enjoyer though.

>>59382781

>>59385941

>>59385941
>>59385953
I will spoonfeed some newfags so that they don't fall for this literal scam.

XRP is a memecoin LARPing as an utility project. No bank uses it. The XRPL makes only $1.4k in fees per day, compared to Ethereum's $2-5 million per day. It's a ghost chain. Ripple (the company) makes money by dumping XRP on retail (not because the XRPL is used).

Some institutions trialed the XRPL years ago because they were paid by Ripple, but they all decided on not using it because it was too expensive.

No one uses the XRPL for cross border settlements and no one will. Ripple planned years ago to replace Swift and now it's clear that they failed, so they don't even mention that narrative anymore.

Nostro Vostro is not needed when using CCIP, in case you didn't know. The concept of a bridge currency is obsolete in a world with atomic DvP, stablecoins, CDBCs, and tokenized assets.

Even if ODL were used, ODL transactions are demand neutral (you buy XRP, send it, and sell it) so it doesn't affect the price (this argument was literally made by Ripple in the court case).

When confronted with the facts, most XRP holders will try ignore the arguments of this post and debate based on ad hominem attacks/memes/price action (they only do this when the price has "gone up"; they are euphoric now that they price is where it was 7 years ago).

>>59380632
Lol

>>59385968
Thank you for this anon, I honestly didn't know what xrp did

>>59386055
Checked. I'm bored as fuck bro.

>>59385968
I will spoonfeed some newfags so that they don't fall for this literal linkiespam.

>XRP is a memecoin LARPing as an utility project. No bank uses it. The XRPL makes only $1.4k in fees per day, compared to Ethereum's $2-5 million per day. It's a ghost chain. Ripple (the company) makes money by dumping XRP on retail (not because the XRPL is used).
false, many banks already use it

>Some institutions trialed the XRPL years ago because they were paid by Ripple, but they all decided on not using it because it was too expensive.
also false

No one uses the XRPL for cross border settlements and no one will. Ripple planned years ago to replace Swift and now it's clear that they failed, so they don't even mention that narrative anymore.
again, false it is already in use, and swift is bending the knee.

>Nostro Vostro is not needed when using CCIP, in case you didn't know. The concept of a bridge currency is obsolete in a world with atomic DvP, stablecoins, CDBCs, and tokenized assets.
again, false, CCIP does none of that, it's simply a messaging system designed for an archaic platform

>Even if ODL were used, ODL transactions are demand neutral (you buy XRP, send it, and sell it) so it doesn't affect the price (this argument was literally made by Ripple in the court case).
No, brainlet take. demand for xrp will certainly bring up the price, what was meant is that the transaction speed would make the price volatility ( in the few seconds it takes to finalize) negligible

>When confronted with the facts, most XRP holders will try ignore the arguments of this post and debate based on ad hominem attacks/memes/price action (they only do this when the price has "gone up"; they are euphoric now that they price is where it was 7 years ago).
I think you have the linkies and XRPchads confused

try again, kek

linkies are gonna be so mad when they realize they had no idea what XRP actyally does and that they fell for the midwit scam that is chainlink

>>59386132
Could you prove any of that?
Like with a statement from one of those banks?

>>59386132
>false
Wrong. No bank uses the XRPL. Show any evidence coming from a bank (not from Ripple shilling theit services) in recent years or onchain.
>false
Wrong. Moneygram for example tested XRP only because it was paid for by Ripple and when they stopped being subsidized (ie paid) by Ripple they stopped using It. This was all exposed in the court case and It was never refuted by Ripple. They didn't even try.
>swift is bending the knee.
How can you be this retarded? You live in la la land. Swift IS the banks. All 11k or them. Swif will go live with CCIP and all banks will be able to connect and transact tokenized assets. This is coming out of their own mouth, no schitzo breadcrumbs needed.
>demand for xrp will certainly bring up the price
There is no demand for XRP. ODL transactions are demand neutral. This was LITERALLY explained by Ripple in their court case. The argument was that because ODL is demand neutral, XRP investors can't expect to profit from buying XRP and therefore it is not a security.
>try again
Maybe you should try again? Repeating "false" over and over doesn,t mean that your schitzo headcanons are reality, sorry

>>59386132
>false, many banks already use it
nope

>>59381307
>banks are going to trust some chain to do their settlements
you fucking midwit they'll be doing this across their own private chains

>>59386334
I was shitposting saar. Kindly refer back to the rest of my postings sar.

>>59380628
>>59382631
yes. who is to his left?

>>59382686
Chainlink now has transaction confidentiality and privacy features that were announced at Sibos, so how does this not make Quant obsolete, especially as it becomes desired to be be able to connect those private permissioned ledgers with all other ledgers both private permissioned and public permissionless?

>>59380621
So the US is finally waking up to tokenization? They better look into machine RWA. It’s gonna own the RWA space.

>>59380781
This is where peaq steals the spotlight, Jeet. Tokenizing assets and turning them into machine DeFi.

>>59387388
Doug von Kohorn

>D1Conf 2018 Panel discussion
>t. 2017 buyer
>V. not required

>>59380621
The end game is to make a stablecoin that the government can seize at any time and make it so that you are forced to pay taxes even on things like taco stands

They aren't going to suddenly make xrp/chainlink/3rd shitty coin the new world cash system. That is retarded
None of this is bullish it just leads to more restrictions on money and the killing of physical cash