Pre-Proposal: Create the first DASH gateway on Ripple
- Thread starter ggololicic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exchange integration trading
This looks promising. How are the currency to currency exchange rates calculated? Is it just the straight conversion of the ripple price to Dash or BTC or ETH based on http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ (or similar external source) plus a fee or is there internal pricing with markups / downs based on the gateway.
AnarchicCluster
Active Member
- Dec 22, 2014
- 399
- 408
- 133
- Dash Address
- XgJkzjmW1onXH8EsaaZakN1GswjjnAYhUE
The Ripple network contains a built-in market between all currencies that exist within the network. You can have a look at existing markets https://charts.ripple.com/ . Basically any user can place a limit order between any two currencies; this creates market liquidity (order book) that is then used to convert between currencies. All of this is featured on the Ripple ledger itself; the gateways merely function as entry points for deposits/withdrawals.
All of this works even without the XRP markets (e.g. DASH/XRP, BTC/XRP, USD/XRP), so you have direct BTC/USD markets etc. There is an extra feature though called "auto-bridging": if you look at an order book, eg. GateHub's BTC/EUR, you'll see both direct BTC/EUR orders, plus combined orders via the XRP markets, so combined BTC/XRP and XRP/EUR.
Gateways (IOU issuers) may charge a fee (specified as percentage) on all trades and transfers.
Edit: links
Sure, 24h GateHub trading statistics are available at https://gatehub.net/stats, or explore full Ripple volumes here: https://charts.ripple.com/#/trade-volume .
Edit: Another link
Last edited:
Barring any problems arising with respect to vetting who you guys are, this is a great idea and I would easily support this!
180 Dash x $88 = $15,840
I would hate for you to think that the Dash MN network is an easy mark to get funding for something you fully intend to do anyway. $15k is a steep price to pay just to, "make our decision to integrate DASH much easier."
How much do you intend to set aside for initial liquidity?
Currently GateHub Fifth offers BTC , ETH, ETC and REP. Dash's market cap currently exceeds ETC and REP. Seems to me it makes good business sense for you to offer the leading cryptocurrencies by market cap, even if you pay your own dev costs (as I assume you did for those other cryptocurrencies).
I would hate for you to think that the Dash MN network is an easy mark to get funding for something you fully intend to do anyway. $15k is a steep price to pay just to, "make our decision to integrate DASH much easier."
As @jimbursch already pointed out, you have have integrated other cryptos with a lower market cap.
Presumably these projects did not pay for their respective integrations.
As it stands I will vote No to this proposal.
All the best with the venture though!
Presumably these projects did not pay for their respective integrations.
As it stands I will vote No to this proposal.
All the best with the venture though!
You are right, they did not. As it turns out, decisions to integrate both ETC and REP were a bit special. We were pushed into ETC in integration by the market at the time of the ETH/ETC fork as we already had ETH integrated and the users naturally expected us to credit them their ETC as well; it was a lot of tedious work for very little benefit. As for REP, we integrated it before REP event went live on the Ethereum network as an attempt to provide the first liquid price discovery for REP, but unfortunately that didn't catch on as well as we would have wanted it to.
For a small start-up exchange, integrating a new currency is always a risky game. It takes precious resources that could be spent otherwise, but the trading might not catch on. What we are trying to do here is mitigate this risk with DASH. Not getting funded here will push DASH integration down the priority list, thereby postponing the decision whether to do it for months, and then it may never happen as there are always new things to do in crypto.
We also honestly believe that integrating two cryptos, DASH and Ripple, will bring synergic benefits to both communities, as it exposes the users of each to the benefits of the other.
As a condition of the proposal, would you sign a contract that no other altcoin would be integrated onto your platform for 12 months unless they paid at least the same integration cost as DASH?
AnarchicCluster
Active Member
- Dec 22, 2014
- 399
- 408
- 133
- Dash Address
- XgJkzjmW1onXH8EsaaZakN1GswjjnAYhUE
I like this idea. It looks like a win-win solution. Dash community will not feel like they are being milked, ripple will get their Dash funds and possibly even more when other coins will want to join.
How dash would be held in your wallet? Single hotwallet setup?
Me and my team done quite some work on ripple ledger since 2013 and, if MNO consider integration with the Ripple useful, I may start a competing proposal
Me and my team done quite some work on ripple ledger since 2013 and, if MNO consider integration with the Ripple useful, I may start a competing proposal
No, a hot wallet + cold wallet. We already use this kind of setup for all supported currencies (BTC, ETH, ETC, REP).
That sounds great! One of the things I like about Ripple is that if a currency is supported by several gateways, as is currently the case with all big currencies (BTC, USD, ETH, CNY, JPY, and others), this tends to create synergic effect due to new markets opening, the added ability for users to quickly transfer funds between gateways, the possibility to withdraw if one of the gateways is down, etc. We don't see another DASH gateway on Ripple as competition at all; quite the contrary.Me and my team done quite some work on ripple ledger since 2013 and, if MNO consider integration with the Ripple useful, I may start a competing proposal
If the DASH community realizes the synergic effects of having several Ripple gateways, both proposals might get funded for even greater benefit to the community as the sum of both.
I don't believe this is necessary for this project. I can't speak for them, but their business model revolves around adding more cryptos to the Ripple network so I can't imagine them signing something like this for this project. This project is about making Dash the next crypto they add ahead of LTC I would assume and other cryptos added to the network would just add more trading pairs for Dash. At any rate, I could support a project like this so it will have my vote.
Their answers to my questions were very thorough and satisfying. They definitely seem honest and and legit.
I don't know enough about Ripple to assess the value of this proposal.
I would prefer to see a proposal like this take place over two months -- month 1 deposit to start work and show progress, month 2 final payment and delivery. That way we are less likely to get chumped.
I don't know enough about Ripple to assess the value of this proposal.
I would prefer to see a proposal like this take place over two months -- month 1 deposit to start work and show progress, month 2 final payment and delivery. That way we are less likely to get chumped.
Yes they are about adding cryptos, but the point is, Dash shouldn't be the only crypto that has to pay to be added. If we are paying for initial integration cost, why would another coin be exempt from that same cost? If we are paying for a first mover advantage, then it's not really a first mover advantage if they can add more coins tomorrow. Either way, whether we are paying for first mover advantage and/or to cover initial cost, it makes sense to have a provision like that. Unless there is some valid reason why another coin should be added for free within a few months after dash pays?
Last edited:
Personally, I'm inclined to vote yes for this (after I've made some basic checks). But as you can see, some MNOs are quite sensitive to funding for-profit proposals. I kind of understand their viewpoint, though personally I take it on a per-proposal basis. Anyway, as it is, this proposal might be a bit touch and go. However, I think if you signed a 12 month exclusive to no further cryptos, then I think that would sway it in your favour.
Exclusivity would be nice but i wouldn't say a requirement. The part I would consider more important is that *if* they decide to add more coins in the short term, they don't just add for free. It would be frustrating for dash to pay for an integration and then they add melon the next month for no cost...
Me too. I think getting Dash on this exchange that sounds better than the other exchanges is a very good thing.
We're going to have to get used to paying people to do things they are doing for free for other projects. It's not necessarily fair, but it's how the budget system works.
Think about it. Everybody who integrated Bitcoin has done so for free, right? But it's taken EIGHT YEARS for this organic growth to happen. We have two choices. Dash can wait five more years for its ecosystem to mature to the level Bitcoin's is now, getting there organically and without paying for integrations. That is the first option. The second option is to use our unique budget system to pay for integrations and accelerate the growth of our ecosystem, potentially exponentially. What is better, waiting many years for organic growth, or exponential growth using budget funds to incentivize Dash's adoption?
As the OP suggests, Dash integration will probably happen if we don't pass the proposal, but it won't happen nearly as quickly. It won't happen until the OP is convinced that there is enough money to be made to pay for the cost of the integration. He's not asking for a "bribe," he's asking for risk mitigation.
I'm not saying that I'm either for or against this specific proposal, only that we are going to have to become used to paying for things that other projects get for free. It's our ability to pay that accelerates our growth. In the eighteen months the budget system has existed, our monthly budget has grown from $!5,000 to $700,000; I don't believe this is coincidental.
Think about it. Everybody who integrated Bitcoin has done so for free, right? But it's taken EIGHT YEARS for this organic growth to happen. We have two choices. Dash can wait five more years for its ecosystem to mature to the level Bitcoin's is now, getting there organically and without paying for integrations. That is the first option. The second option is to use our unique budget system to pay for integrations and accelerate the growth of our ecosystem, potentially exponentially. What is better, waiting many years for organic growth, or exponential growth using budget funds to incentivize Dash's adoption?
As the OP suggests, Dash integration will probably happen if we don't pass the proposal, but it won't happen nearly as quickly. It won't happen until the OP is convinced that there is enough money to be made to pay for the cost of the integration. He's not asking for a "bribe," he's asking for risk mitigation.
I'm not saying that I'm either for or against this specific proposal, only that we are going to have to become used to paying for things that other projects get for free. It's our ability to pay that accelerates our growth. In the eighteen months the budget system has existed, our monthly budget has grown from $!5,000 to $700,000; I don't believe this is coincidental.
Dash is the whore of crypto and I'm totally okay with that, but let's just remember some clients are just too plain weird
But yes, on balance, I would vote yes for this.
I think I would vote yes for this. But it seems to be a duplicate of this one https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-open-source-dash-gateway-on-ripple.14765/
Are they the same thing?
Are they the same thing?
No, they are different. My proposal was inspired by this exchange https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...rst-dash-gateway-on-ripple.14721/#post-125192
This is closed source integration, my will be open source, free to anyone to use.
Of course, the code won't be the only thing necessary to run a successul gateway. This is where I hope to cooperate with GateHub Fifth, perhaps by establishing trust lines, or liquidity pool, or something else, neccessary for efficient service.
@ggololicic, I'd be glad to see your comments too
ok - interesting. Well, if we have the cash, I am very likely to vote yes for both. Ripple is on fire at the moment, and that cos it is getting the banks interested. To me, a few links into their success is a good thing (not that I like ripple - i dont - but thats not the point)