W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > October 2015

Having different types of connectors (was Interledger and Privacy)

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:19:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KXujXZgBm=WiN2P4NZ==Dp7djhjp92ATrje3SLoJTaNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Another of Arie's great questions:

In a world of risk mitigation and systemic risk exposure, would it be safe
to say that having different types of connectors is wise?

   - ie; banks in all jurisdictions
      - wire houses v regional
         - commercial v IB's
      - cpa's, accountants
      - lawyers/barristers

In my opinion this is the beauty of ILP over the traditional closed payment
networks we have today. ILP creates a competitive ecosystem where users
have choice and are able to make payments along payment paths that meet
their particular requirements.

The more variety we have in connectors and ledgers the more variety we will
have in payment options allowing a user to favour speed, stability,
guaranteed delivery, cost or any other metric in determining the path they
wish to follow for their payment.

Bare in mind that ILP could also be used to link ledger's tracking
non-traditional assets (i.e. not just currencies) so there may be
connectors that operate under different laws and regulations for different
use cases.

Consider that you may have someone offering a ledger that tracks ownership
of gold in a vault and connectors that offer a spread for buying and
selling that gold for different currencies. It may be that the desired path
for a particular user payment uses gold as one of the intermediary assets.

What regulations are the connectors trading gold (or Bitcoin, or Word Of
Warcraft gold) subject to?
Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 15:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 October 2015 15:19:48 UTC