Firstly, thank you guys for putting up an ILP dedicated forum to discuss this stuff.
This came to me while thinking about how ILP abstracts away Rippled’s pathfinding functionality. When I was listening to this ILP community call with @adrianhopebailie’s comment at 33:20 and the conversation around routing, I thought this may be helpful.
The basic idea here, starts from me thinking about XRPLedger as a Connector within the framework of an open IoV, and the use of it’s pathfinding functionality as a sort of ‘freely available routing service’. Which leads to an IoV environment in which Market Makers aka Connectors must compete against the free service provided by XRPLedger.
From there I started thinking about RippleNet, assuming that each bank runs their own Rippled ledger which has it’s own pathfinding functionality, and further assuming that IOUs could be issued onto that banks private Rippled ledger representing the terms of their bilateral Nostro/Vostro relationships with other RippleNet banks… with the cost/spread represented as Quality In/Out which means the terms/spreads between each Connector remains private to each Connector.
To find the relevant parts skip about 2/3s down the write up and start at “Now with all that said… back to RippleNet”
The big idea… Once you have a series of banks, each with their N/V terms expressed on each other’s xCurrent ledgers via Quality in/out… then finding the best combination of many xCurrent ledger paths to send a payment through, is effectively preforming distributed pathfinding across all relationships, in an automated way!!!