Ripple wins another lawsuit (and other good XRP news)

Game changing companies like Ripple today just like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Uber before them are constantly under attack from frivoulous lawsuits. Right now it seems we are at 2 down and only one to go!

Ripple has just won their latest case (a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Cooperative Entertainment Inc). On January 9th they (Ripple) filed a motion to dismiss and on February 6, Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. filed for voluntary dismissal. The case has been dismissed ‘with prejudice’ which means that the lawsuit cannot be brought back to court.

The official documents can be seen here and here.

Other good news for XRP and Ripple

The good news for XRP fans just keeps on coming thick and fast these days:

Moneygram and Ripple launching ODL in even more corridors

Ripple and Moneygram now have liquidity solutions currently live with the follow fiat pairs: US dollar, the Euro, the Mexican peso, the Philippine peso, and the Australian dollar.

XRP keeps on breaking records every week

Forget the quite pathetic Bitcoin FUD masters who even to this day are ramping up their FUD campaign against XRP. While they cling to their solitary “store of value” (ie pyramid scheme) so called use case, XRP continues to smash through ceilings and break all liquidity records in the corridors already open. XRP is continually trouncing all other cryptocurrencies for real world, real use, legal and legitimate volume and liquidity.

The XRP/MXN, XRP/PSP and XRP/AUD pairs have all been smashing records every week since late 2019! In February these records have been broken again and the RippleNet ODL partners are steadily increasing their throughput percentages, happy in the knowledge they are saving vast amounts of money and time and that for every ramp up in volume, the network is remaining fully stable and secure.

Ripple mentioned by the Bank of France

2.1.3 Specific aspects relating to blockchain use The idea behind the concept of a wholesale CBDC is to enable central bank money to circulate in a decentralised manner for settling transactions between financial or non-financial institutions. It would be associated with a blockchain-type technology offering an alternative to standard types of infrastructure (RTGS and other payment and securities settlement systems). As this could potentially also be the case for a retail CBDC, many of the questions raised in this section are therefore also germane to a retail CBDC and can be added to those discussed in the previous section; in the case of an intermediated distribution model, they would have to be addressed by payment services providers. Establishment by the central bank of a blockchain-based infrastructure raises a set of technical and functional questions:

– Settings of the blockchain used to circulate digital currency units: unlike a retail CBDC, a wholesale CBDC would be by definition issued to a limited number of financial sector users. The choice and number of blockchain participants would be determined by the central bank according to criteria that it has set (in the same way as happens for payment systems, for example). This would be compatible exclusively with a blockchain operating in private mode. Such an approach would also make it possible to reduce the operational constraints associating with approving transactions, by accelerating this process and avoiding the use of mining and reward processes;

– Interaction with other blockchains: one of the key advantages of the wholesale CBDC is linked to the ability to provide settlement in central bank money in exchange for other classes of tokenised assets or even other wholesale CBDCs. [15] For example, issuance of wholesale CBDC units could be made conditional, by means of a smart contract, on having an eligible tokenised asset, which could itself circulate on another blockchain, serve as security. But this type of approach would require the ability to interface blockchains in order to link the transactions. Smart contracts represent the most promising way forward in this area and are already being used to secure the issuance of tokens against cryptoassets in ICOs (Howelletal., 2018). In addition, every exchange involving the wholesale CBDC’s blockchain would require a mirror smart contract to be set up on the blockchainon which the asset pledged as security circulates, necessitating total interoperability in terms of establishing the settings of the two blockchains. The ability to have the wholesale CBDC interact with other blockchains would therefore entail two prerequisites: Standards must be established so that the wholesale CBDC blockchain can communicate with blockchains it accepts as backings of the central bank’s counterparties; Smart contract templates approved by the central bank must be developed for the various categories of transactions proposed. Otherwise, only tokenised assets issued on the blockchain accepting the wholesale CBDC could be settled in CBDC.

– Potential circulation of the wholesale CBDC on several blockchains. Oversight by the central bank of this circulation would be complex and could have implications for financial stability(4.3.2) and monetary policy transmission (4.2.3) that are difficult to anticipate at this stage. Two different approaches could be taken to address this question: The central bank puts itself in a position to issue wholesale CBDC units on any blockchain that can be used as a medium of exchange at its counters. This solution would be extremely complex to manage and would result in the central bank having to organise circulation of the wholesale CBDC on blockchains whose technology and governance framework are out of its control; Units issued on the wholesale CBDC’s native blockchain could be transferred to other blockchains. Since the attributes of a unit of the wholesale CBDC (file representing the currency unit, keys enabling use) maybe integrated in a cryptoasset circulating on another blockchain, which is possible on Ethereum and Ripple, for example, it would then become possible to use the unit on this blockchain. At this point, from the central bank’s perspective, the unit would be “immobile” (no movement would be recorded in the distributed ledger) until one of the users of the wholesale CBDC’s original blockchain made it circulate. In the intervening period, the wholesale CBDC unit could be exchanged via the secondary blockchain between entities not belonging to the digital currency’s formal circulation network.

However, during circulation on secondary blockchains, entities exchanging these assets would not in principle be able to check their authenticity, integrity and uniqueness. These two approaches raise difficulties and risks for the issuing central bank and are not necessarily compatible with the principle of a strictly wholesale application. They could notably lead to very widespread ownership of the CBDC among non-residents, (4.2.2) in a potential retail scenario.

15 See trials by the central banks of Thailand and Hong Kong.

Consequently, if the central bankwanted to avoid unregulated distribution of the wholesale CBDC, it could for example require participants in the blockchain accepting the wholesale CBDC to circulate the currency only within the original blockchain (source)

Relevant news