Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity Accounts for 10% of MoneyGram Payments from the US and Mexico

  • Ripple previously purchased a large stake in MoneyGram before the implementation of xRapid.
  • Industry players want efficient and inexpensive options for their transactions.

Earlier in the summer of 2019, MoneyGram decided to implement xRapid, which is the On-Demand Liquidity product available through Ripple. Ripple had preceded the implementation by purchasing a large stake in MoneyGram, and recent comments by chief executive Alex Holmes reveal that remittances using ODL and XRP have already started being sent from Mexico. Of these transactions, 10% are using Ripple’s product.

Holmes made his remarks during Swell 2019, speaking with Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse. The former expressed how he feels about the present current remittance industry, as well as the way that MoneyGram contributes to the leveraging of blockchain and digital assets.

Through the last decade, additional competition in the industry has allowed remittance to evolve.

Holmes stated,

“What has amazed me the most is the amount of pressure that legacy players face. The fundamental challenge of moving money around the work is that there isn’t a lot of coordination between financial institutions and there should be more solutions to connect all these pieces. More and more companies are looking to make the economy move like it should.”

Holmes continued, saying that money will continue to move around the world, regardless of the challenges that it faces in political or economic struggles. He stated, “Every industry must be omnipresent and understand what their customers want.” Technology is one way that industry players are working to remedy these demands for low-cost, fast, and transparent transactions. Discussing the new product from Ripple, Holmes expressed that the project positions them “at the forefront of this technology.”

Brad Garlinghouse said, during an interview, that Holmes had previously complained that Ripple was moving too slowly with their progress on ODL. While both Ripple and MoneyGram were happy with the 10% use, both companies hope to expand the use of ODL to four global directions. The companies also use a cloud service to benefit customers with their transactions.

Read Original/a>
Author: Krystle M

Latest Ripple XRP Securities Lawsuit Updates: A Decision Must Be Made

  • Ripple has been the subject of many lawsuits through the last few years.
  • Multiple lawyers believe that the only minor victory for Ripple would be if the case were to be dismissed, though it will likely face other lawsuits.

Today, on November 4th, the next stage of the long-running Ripple lawsuit will be taking place, though that stage has seemingly yet to be decided. Bradley Sostack, the plaintiff, can file a response to a motion to dismiss by the end of the day, which was originally initiated on September 20th. If it isn’t fully dismissed, then the case might move into discovery, as it would be newly categorized as a class action lawsuit.

The big question that seems to be on the table during this case is if XRP should be registered as a security under US law, which is what Sostack is claiming. If so, then the Ripple-based token might end up being at risk of enforcement action by the regulators in the US. However, regardless of the ending of this case, legal experts don’t believe that there will be a resolve on the matter.

Rebecca Rettig, a partner with FisherBroyles, commented,

“No one’s finding out whether XRP is a security anytime soon, if ever, at least through this proceeding.”

There are plenty of reasons that this type of decision won’t be made. For instance, the last motion made by Ripple argued that the complaint by Sostack took too long to file, and that the case doesn’t actually show that the plaintiff had purchased XRP from Ripple or even the initial sale. To win the case, Ripple probably won’t even need to address the question.

A partner with Anderson Kill, Stephen Palley, pointed out that “a solid motion” was created by the defense team.

He added,

“The defense lawyers have done a good job so far. They’ve shown some good tactical skills, they could win but even if they do there are a lot of other things that could happen.”

According to CoinDesk, there’s been no response from the general counsel of Ripple.

Rather than being initiated as an argument, the motion from Ripple to dismiss was more about the question being posed in the first place. Paul Godfrey, an attorney that is based in Florida, stated that the platform created “both a statement and a legal conclusion in its introduction.” He added that the introduction pointed out that “the crux of [plaintiffs’] claims is the false assertion that XRP is not a currency, but rather a security.”

Godfrey, who doesn’t practice securities law and has never litigated in the federal courts, believes that the discussion over XRP’s status (or lack thereof) as a security is more of a legal conclusion, which Ripple makes but doesn’t argue.

Godfrey stated,

“Ripple does not advance any argument to prove such a denial… Accordingly, it is addressed, but not argued.”

Rettig believes that pushing back against the idea of XRP is a security could be considered “too risky,” and a major analysis of the facts would be essential to making the argument in court. Ripple avoided this type of fight with “straightforward legal defenses,” as Rettig sees it.

She remarked,

“If you have independent grounds or a dismissal, [and] you don’t have to get into a fact-intensive analysis, why do it?”

Furthermore, in claiming that XRP is not a security, adding that it is instead a currency, Ripple could face holes in the argument.

Palley points out an interesting conundrum, stating that securities law may still allow something to be considered a security or investment contract, as well as a currency, simultaneously.

He stated,

“Basically, just because it’s one thing doesn’t mean it can’t be another. It can be a security for one purpose, and currency for another. The application of one framework doesn’t exclude another.”

He brought up the current legal battle involving Kik Interactive and the SEC, during which time that the former stated that their kin cryptocurrency cannot be a security because it is a currency. The SEC has since disagreed.

The “statute of repose” argument used by Ripple is interesting to Rettig, who noted that the argument has been brought up in other cases. This period of time covers the period after a sale that allows parties to file a lawsuit in response to an alleged wrongdoing. The “statute of limitations” is different, as it starts upon learning of the misconduct, according to law professor Peter Henning that wrote about these circumstances in the New York Times.

Rettig elaborated, stating,

“The statute of repose argument … was used successfully a number of times in cases bringing Securities Act claims relating to mortgage-backed securities six or seven years ago, which provides precedent the defendants could rely on.”

Rettig explained that the first filing of the amended complaint by the plaintiff involved,

“a lot of discussion about how novel and interesting it was that plaintiff cited extensively to websites, to social media and the like.”

He added that the “interesting” approach made the complained “robust.”

Ripple used this maneuver to their its advantage, bringing in their own facts.

However, Rettig commented,

“Usually defendants can only use the facts alleged in the complaint itself or the facts incorporated by reference in a complaint in defending against claims on a motion to dismiss. Here, however, defendants were able to use all of the facts in the documents, websites and social media posts to which the complaint cites in rebutting plaintiff’s claims.”

Ripple brought in information sourced from a wiki page to support their argument, though Rettig commented that other details on that same page were used by the plaintiff to support his argument.

Godfrey remarked,

“By showing no relief was available for count 1, Ripple was able to demonstrate there was a failure to state a cause of action for count 2.”

Now, in the filing expected to be today, the plaintiff has a few ways available that could ultimately push the case along. Rettig believes that the plaintiff may try to “relate back” to the first case that was filed, which stated that Ripple was in violation of securities laws. This wouldn’t be a new accusation, considering that Ripple has been facing lawsuits since May last year that alleged that XRP was being sold as an unregistered security. However, it still may not be enough to win, since Ripple already argued against it.

Rettig explained,

“Plaintiff also relies on a ‘continuing sale’ theory and they may apply that argument to the statutory requirement that the statute of repose runs from the date the security was ‘first bona fide offered to the public.”

Godfrey remarked that the discovery process that eventually is implemented could help with the verification of the XRP purchase from Ripple by the plaintiffs.

He stated,

“If I were Plaintiff’s attorneys … I would focus on the fact that while the inference could not be maintained in the past, with present technology and some well-aimed discovery, it would be quite easy to determine whether or not XRP was purchased by Plaintiffs from Defendants.”

Even if Ripple manages to come out victorious, Palley believes that the platform will continue to be faced with new lawsuits.While other cryptocurrency companies tend to be difficult to sue with their lack of liquidity, Ripple doesn’t have the same problem.

Palley pointed out,

“[With] ICO class action litigation from an economics perspective, you have to ask … how much money can you recover? Ripple, you have a solid [chance] of money.”

Palley added that winning now isn’t a win overall, and that the case being dismissed would mean more of a victory for the platform.

Tobacco companies often face a similar problem, as they would have to win every single case. The loss of just one case opens the door for other parties to use it towards their own victorious lawsuits.

Palley added,

“It’s not like winning this case means that nobody else can sue them for securities violations.”

At the same time, it doesn’t mean that Ripple can be faced exclusively with losses; it only means that parties have the ability to file lawsuits.

Until the case has some level of movement today, blockchain industry lawyers await the outcome of the Sostack versus Ripple case. Rettig remarked, “It’s not going to end for a long time.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Krystle M

Ripple CEO Highlights Real World XRP Uses Cases (MoneyGram), Asks Users to Look Beyond Skepticism

Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of San Francisco-headquartered Ripple has responded to the growing criticism of XRP given the third-largest altcoin has failed to see a significant price rally in 2019 even when the market recorded double-digit growth. Many analysts can’t put their head around on how XRP has managed to remain as the third-largest cryptocurrency despite that.

Ripple and XRP have always made headlines for the wrong reasons, amid growing criticism on the control of Ripple on XRP’s circulation volume and growing demands for it to be categorized under security law, one thing that has got the Fintech firm moving forward is its strong social media fandom.

XRP proponents have never backed down from claiming that the altcoin is the best use case of the evolving tech and despite its diminishing price, its real-world use case for cross border remittance makes a better form of digital currency. Garlinghouse share similar thoughts as he pointed toward MoneyGram, the world’s leading cross-border payment and remittance service provider. MoneyGram started using RippleNet to make real-time cross-border settlement under 60 seconds. He wrote on Twitter,

“Many have doubted the benefits of #XRP, but you don’t have to take my word for it. The proof is in the pudding: @MoneyGram is experiencing real-time settlement (~60 seconds) in USD to Mexican pesos.”

Ripple realized the potential of the cross-border remittance service which can be achieved using XRP early and has created their whole brand around it by creating RippleNet technology which can be easily integrated with existing banks. Currently Ripple over hundreds of partner banks and several other RippleNet associates creating a financial network based on XRP and RippleNet.

This has allowed the Fintech firm to provide instance cross-border transactions with minimal cost. Ripple has invested $30 million for a 10% stake in MoneyGram earlier this year. As per the deal, MoneyGram can request for another $20 million from Ripple Labs

The deal would allow MoneyGram to use RippleNet’s xRapid which is an essential tool for cross-border liquidity using XRP. Alex Holmes, the chief executive of MoneyGram, said,

”instantly settle funds from US dollars to destination currencies on a 24/7 basis, which has the potential to revolutionize our operations and dramatically streamline our global liquidity management.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Daniel W

Ripple Consolidates its xRapid, xCurrent and xVia Features Under One Network; RippleNet

Ripple recently announced the consolidation of its services within RippleNet offering. The blockchain-oriented firm known for its convenient transfer features in the blockchain ecosystem made these changes to enhance service delivery to clients.

The New Ripple Network Outlook

A spokesman from Ripple noted that besides the change of name, the firm had sought to make its xRapid, xVia and xCurrent features more accessible. As a result, clients will now be able to use xVia and xCurrent on-premises in addition to cloud services. This will be an improvement from the current design that requires prospective clients to buy the features. Furthermore, Ripple’s xRapid technology will leverage the on-demand liquidity that comes under RippleNet offering.

According to Ripple’s sentiments, the strategy to consolidate under one network is a step in the right direction as the market evolves. One of the most notable reasons is a demand in the firm’s services that has seen its user base grow hence the need for a standard development that competes favourably.

Ripple’s Decentralization in Question!

The project has however had its fair share of criticisms with players in crypto attacking the fundamentals of Ripple’s decentralization. This has put the firm in a defensive position over its growth journey. Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple’s CEO, recently said the nature of Ripple’s transparent ecosystem is what has attracted many critics. He added that there exists a lot of misinformation about Ripple’s products amongst the crypto community which can be partly attributed to their success in creating a highly transparent network.

Read Original/a>
Author: Lujan Odera

XRP Decentralization: Only One out of Five Of Ripple’s UNL Validators Are Run by Company

  • The UNL is a list of the validators that Ripple believes are most reliable to verify transactions.
  • Ripple aims to eventually no longer be a part of the process in selecting validators.

Decentralization is one of the key components of the cryptocurrency industry that has proponents excited. The fans of Ripple and XRP are now taking a moment to celebrate, due to a recent milestone achieved on the XRP Ledger. According to a recent article from crypto news outlet DH, the list of trusted validators with Ripple has been updated, and the new details reveal that 79% of the nodes no longer are run by Ripple, which is major progress for decentralization. More specifically, only seven of the 34 UNL validators recorded on the network claim Ripple as their owner.

Validators in the Ripple network are in charge of performing the math to decide if transactions are valid. This validity determines if the network accepts or rejects the transaction, which is meant to prevent abuse and double spending on the network. The list of trusted validators, which is a unique node list (UNL), shows which validators are deemed most reliable by Ripple.

True decentralization means that there is no one company or entity that is in charge, and Ripple has come under fire multiple times from the public for their seeming lack of decentralization. Still, Ripple aims to eventually remove itself from the process by which these validators are determined.

Ripple isn’t the only one with this type of process. CoinField, a cryptocurrency exchange in Canada, has recently launched a UNL validator.

Right now, there’s a project that Ripple is keeping under wraps to help them increase the adoption of the native token. However, at least until November’s Malta Blockchain Summit, this project remains a secret to anyone outside of the Ripple team.

Read Original/a>
Author: Krystle M

Ripple in Hot Water For Misleading Relationship with XRP in ‘Discovery’ vs ‘Creation’ Debate

Ripple has recently been criticized for misrepresenting the fact that it created the XRP tokens. Nic Carter, the co-founder of Coinmetrics.io, has recently affirmed the company is trying to “obfuscate the nature” of it’s relationship with the XRP technology.

According to Carter, “these psychopaths” (meaning Ripple) are claiming that they discovered XRP instead of creating it, which is what actually happened. The accusation comes from a quote that was said by Cory Johnson, who worked as the Chief Markets Strategist of the crypto company for around a year.

Johnson affirmed that the relationship that Ripple has with XRP is similar to the kind of relationship that Chevron has with oil because the company does not control all of it and is not the same thing. The company’s representative was basically trying to disassociate Ripple from its creation.

Carter also cited an article written by the attorney Preston Byrne, in which he believed to be a good take on this discussion. According to Byrne, no one used XRP before Ripple was created.

“No ‘Official Ledger’ containing XRP or any transactions on the ledger which is today used as ‘XRP’ existed before Ripple Labs, Inc. (initially named Newcoin Inc.) was incorporated on 19 September 2012.”

This is the main reason why he believes that XRP is a Ripple security: it did not exist nor was it used before the company. The technology is directly related to the company, despite how “decentralized” it can be. It makes no sense to compare it to oil, which already existed before it was extracted.

“One really important distinction is, the XRP ledger existed before Ripple the company. Certainly we are an interested party in the success of the XRP ledger, for sure — we own a lot of XRP. But it’s a little bit like saying, Exxon owns a lot of oil. That doesn’t make oil a security.”

The only real reason why Ripple keeps doing this, is that it does not want its tokens to be labeled as securities. This would put its business at risk, so it has to maintain an image that the network is decentralized and that there is a real difference between Ripple and XRP, especially when the difference is very thin.

“}” data-sheets-userformat=”{“2″:13057,”3”:{“1″:0},”11″:3,”12″:0,”15″:”Open Sans”,”16″:11}”>Latest Ripple News and XRP Price Updates

Read Original/a>
Author: Gabriel Machado