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

Re: Rating connectors (was Interledger and Privacy)

From: Ryan Fugger <arv@ryanfugger.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:07:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD83BY2GEmdnsXhzmNqL4rjkZTnGnfk-uPBp0RL513TzbvLKNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-interledger@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 01:08:18 UTC