American Economist Praises Ripple and XRP Calling It A “Brilliant Technology”

If you’re a cryptocurrency enthusiast, you must be knowing that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies came into existence due to the failures of the traditional banking system during the 2008 economic crisis.

Jeffrey Tucker, an American economist and director of the American Institute of Economic Research (AIES), went out all praises for Ripple’s native cryptocurrency XRP. During an interview on Russia Today’s Boom Bust episode, Tucker said that Ripple’s growth in exemplary in a way that thrives on the failures of traditional and legacy financial systems like SWIFT.

Tucker called Ripple as an “extremely important technology,” while adding to it that the “legacy financial systems are incapable of dealing with the new age of globalization so taking crypto to kind of fill this market niche.”

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse expressed similar views on SWIFT calling it a “one way messaging system” while speaking at the Swell Conference in Singapore earlier this year. He said: “You execute a SWIFT wire transaction and the only way you know I received it is when you send me a note saying ‘hey, I sent you a wire’… this does not need to happen in a world where people can use better technology”.

He added that Ripple’s technology is much better which follows a “two-way messaging framework” that works with its native XRP crypto token.

However, XRP has been the worst performer among the top-ten cryptocurrencies in the crypto market. While almost every other digital currency has given positive returns, XRP has eroded investors’ wealth dropping over 40% year-to-date.

On the other hand, Ripple has repeatedly found itself in the midst of controversy. The blockchain startup has been charged with multiple lawsuits with the plaintiffs claiming that XRP is a ‘security’ token. However, Ripple has rejected all these allegations.

In the interview when asked whether XRP is a security token, Tucker sided with Ripple rejecting this thought. He said that Federal Security laws in the U.S. are not applicable to such groundbreaking technologies.

"What we are trying to do is reclassify these super-modern 21st century technologies and old 20th century categories. It doesn't actually make any sense,” he said.