Thread by @audaciouslnvest

I've been trying to get this exact point across for a long time now to countless #XRP maxis who think everything is linked to XRP. I'm glad we both agree on this 💯

And I agree we got to look at it in terms of probability how we think it plays out as we don't know for certain.

When I talk about interoperability protocols I'm not talking about a specific platform perse. But I'd discuss more on that later. However, if we look at Model 2 describing 'Interlinking options' wouldn't the #XRPL also fall under that category if connecting two silos? 🤔

If the #XRPL is an intermediary between two silos for settlement then it is an interlinking agent connecting them. Thus the concerns outlined below 👇 should also apply to the XRPL & it using a bridge asset #XRP wouldn't change much really. Except add more concerns to the mix.

Now the #XRPL can also fall under Model 3 too like mBridge, especially the Ripple CBDC platform designed for institutions. If you're also saying you don't think Model 3 like mBridge would do well the same applies for Ripples CBDC platform and the XRPL.

In fact I would say Model 3 is more suited to #XRPL in its design than Model 2 for efficiency purposes. But you have ruled out the probability of both models really making it, and say we are likely moving in the direction of Model 1. Now eventhough Model 1 is based on...

'Compatible CBDC systems,' we can just say CBDC systems as we know different nations are using different tech. You say in Model 1 is where #XRP as a bridge asset would shine, however interfacing with the #XRPL to use #XRP would bring about all the challenges of Model 2 outlined.

Now in my opinion what would suit Model 1 best are Interoperability Protocols. What I meant by that are Interoperability Standards. For example like we have uniform standards for messaging interoperability with ISO 20022 the same concept with DLT systems like ISO TC/307 & SATP.

I think if we are talking probability wise then interoperability standards and protocols for DLT systems will be established. And they would be followed by any intermediary in the business of facilitating interoperability for DLT systems.

If you look at the last sentence it says an interlinking system without investment in broader coordination to introduce compatibility, has been insufficient. Broader coordination to introduce compatibility can definitely be achieved from uniform standards. Is #XRPL doing that?

Let's talk about the friction.

Which one has more friction?

1. A <-> B
Direct connection following established standards (even if via a service provider)

2. A <-> XRPL <-> B
Indirect connection via XRPL which requires extra hops & the XRPL being a bottleneck for tps.

I agree todays friction level is a 10. But #XRPL used in Model 2 would be high friction too. The flow would be far from smooth and efficient for institutions with all the hops. The friction level would be like a 7 or 8. Unless Model 3 is used with the XRPL for best efficiency.

If Model 3 is used the friction level would be low especially if it is the Ripple CBDC platform being used.

As for interoperability standards used for Model 1 providing direct gateway connection, no scalability issues, no extra consensus added etc. that has the least friction.

Like you said there are so many options, most will go nowhere & a few will become the status quo.

Whether #XRP as a bridge asset gains traction within #XRPL (as a hub or as a M-CBDC platform) compared to other solutions is yet to be seen.

There's alot of challenges though.

@threadreaderapp unroll