W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Non-currency asset transfers & Connector commissions

From: Dimitri De Jonghe <dimi@bigchaindb.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:01:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CADkP8Cq8XPUusmBzVA9_Gug6N1MfjWX+PZ5pp3KbAw2eJ78xqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Fuelling <dfuelling@sappenin.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Hi David,

Sorry if this has been answered already, but can anyone clarify if ILP is
> intended to be used for non-currency assets transfers (assuming a fungible
> non-currency asset)?
>
> Great question. ILP is meant to support fungible assets indeed. At
BigchainDB, we think of supply chains, shares, tickets, IP, licenses, and
so on.

In fact, we have a little share trading demo
<https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb-examples#example-share-trader>
that we would like to port into an ILP setup.

>
> However, it's not clear to me how will the ILP connector "fee system"
> would work in a case like this.  For example, imagine I want to transfer 10
> shares of stock from one brokerage account to another.  I think I can wrap
> my mind around how to model that in ILP, but how does the connector
> "charge" for its services?  It seems impractical to take a percentage of
> shares off of my transfer.  Instead, a connector would want to additionally
> transfer some sort of currency to itself as part of the transaction to
> "pay" for the connector usage.
>

Indeed, this has been on our minds also. I think there are few possible
scenarios, and I can imagine our community to come up with even better ones.
In general, one would like to see a payment receipt for the charges in
order to transfer the shares. Hence the traders would need to connect -
besides their shares ledger - to an ILP compatible payment ledger.
The payment ledger would then create an ILP fulfillment URI to fulfill the
shares transfers that are in escrow. It's still a bit vague but it would be
truly cool if we can spin up a demo for this. (Actually I would be
interested in doing so on the ILP hackaton 6/july in London). I can imagine
many more use cases that would follow such a pattern

This is only one stream of thoughts. I am sure others might be more in
detail/efficient

>
> My read of ILP is that each transaction can only involve one "type" of
> asset (whereas this would involve 2 types - the stock, and some currency as
> a commission).
>
> Actually, we advocate that a ledger should only contain one type of
assets. But ILP allows to connect homogeneous ledgers of various asset
types, given there are suitable connectors/exchanges. The latter will be an
interesting topic for ILP. Moreover, it would be interesting if there would
be a formal registry of asset types.

Definitely a good question worth asking!

Have a nice weekend,

Dimi


Dimitri De Jonghe, PhD
Developer

+49 157 5946 2122 | Twitter <https://twitter.com/DimitriDeJonghe> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/dimitridejonghe> | GitHub
<https://github.com/diminator> | S <https://facebook.com/>kype:
dimi.dejonghe
[image: Logo] <https://www.bigchaindb.com/>

BigchainDB GmbH
Wichertstr. 14a, 10439 Berlin | Managing Director: Bruce Pon | Registered
in Berlin HRB 160856B |info@bigchaindb.com | www.bigchaindb.com
Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 19:05:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 June 2016 19:05:24 UTC