Re: Rating connectors (was Interledger and Privacy)

I would think laissez faire free markets are a valid objective but transitioning to that may require some familiar crutches, at least at first? Agreed on the validators not needing to be rated, but for pricing, ledgers might...Ripple does with in way (right?). 

-- 
Heritage & Legacy Advisory | Multi-Generational Wealth Preservation
 
Arie Y. LEVY-COHEN
FINANCIAL ADVISOR | INTERNATIONAL CLIENT ADVISOR
PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT | NEW YORK
ECONOMICS | FINANCE | BLOCKCHAIN
P: 917.692.6999

> On Oct 28, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Ryan Fugger <arv@ryanfugger.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to add that I don't see a technical need to identify or rate connectors in this way in order for payments to be secure, and so it shouldn't be a part of the base protocol. Adrian's suggestion that the market will accommodate this after the fact seems right to me.
> 
>> On Oct 26, 2015 8:31 AM, "Adrian Hope-Bailie" <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>> Another question from Arie:
>> 
>> Would there be a need to rate these connectors or give them a "score" akin to rating agencies?
>> on speed / response time?
>> proactivity and accountability?
>> crypto escrow insurance?
>> I think that the market will begin to establish this.
>> 
>> i.e. There is an opportunity for someone to provide scoring/guidance to users of connectors. The success of these "attestors" will likely be influenced by the metrics they expose, their accuracy, cost to get the data etc.
>> 
>> These same "attestors" will likely also provide some ways of establishing connector's identity and regulatory compliance. 
>> 
>> In a forward thinking jurisdiction one could imagine the rating, licensing, certification etc of connectors being provided as a public service by someone like a central bank...?
>>