- From: Ryan Fugger <arv@ryanfugger.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:07:47 -0700
- To: public-interledger@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAD83BY2GEmdnsXhzmNqL4rjkZTnGnfk-uPBp0RL513TzbvLKNA@mail.gmail.com>
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...? >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 01:08:17 UTC