Banks Unlikely to Apply Blockchain, Ripple Says

David Schwartz, chief cryptographer of Ripple, is convinced that banks aren't going to use blockchain for cross-border payments in the nearest future
14 June 2018   1809

According to the chief cryptographer of Ripple, David Schwartz, banks are unlikely to use blockchain technology for cross-border transfers in the foreseeable future. This is reported by CoinTelegraph.

In his opinion, banks are aware of the potential for blockchain, which can reduce costs and reduce the time for the implementation of transactions. However, the level of scalability of technology is still low, which prevents the widespread introduction of blockchain on a global scale.

The representative of Ripple claims that the Interledger protocol and, in particular, the xCurrent solution provide the ability to conduct instant payments. This, in his opinion, gives Ripple significant competitive advantages compared to other payment networks.

At the same time, Schwarz calls the xCurrent solution "unallocated registry". So, in the case of xCurrent, network nodes do not have access to the common registry, which is the basis for block-network networks like Ethereum (ETH).

What we hear from many of our customers is that it’s imperative to keep their transactions private, process thousands every second, and accommodate every type of currency and asset imaginable.
 

David Schwartz

Chief cryptographer, Ripple

According to another representative of Ripple Markus Tremacher, the company presented a project in which banks can carry out "classic" payments on the blockchain. However, the financial institutions were skeptical of the new initiative, citing the fact that "it is not so easy to transfer the whole world to a blockchain".

US Crypto Companies to Support TON in Case With SEC

The Blockchain Association said Telegram taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements
23 January 2020   446

The Blockchain Association, which combines companies such as Coinbase, Circle, 0x and Ripple, issued an expert opinion as part of the ongoing proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Telegram.

Previously, the Digital Commerce Chamber launched a similar initiative. The blockchain association, however, was more straightforward and stated that Telegram had taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements. According to members of the organization, the actions of the SEC can damage not only Telegram, but the market as a whole.

The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.

 

The Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association notes that for many years it has not been possible for SEC to obtain clear and unambiguous guidance for conducting activities in the cryptocurrency space, while the claims of the regulator make the current situation even more ambiguous. 

The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.

 

The Blockchain Association

They cite examples of startups TurnKey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters, in respect of which the regulator recommended not to apply legal measures, adding that such litigations inevitably involve high costs and do not guarantee industry participants that they will not be prosecuted in the future.

Telegram discussed its plans with SEC staff for a year and a half, provided copious information and responded to limited feedback by adjusting the design of its transaction. Yet, at the end, the SEC has sued, and the SEC’s briefs thus far say nothing about the substance of those discussions. 

 

The Blockchain Association

In conclusion, the group asks the court to “reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.”