In a world where I get to unilaterally set the rules, the line would be when one person or company is the only entity that can officially bless the mechanism that is tasked with approving and verifying transactions. As far as I know Ripple Inc, a for profit company, owns, runs, and controls all the nodes that approve XRP transactions.

I dont really see how XRP is really any different than Paypal. If they can ban me, stop me from sending my tokens to whoever I want, or reverse my transaction I don't feel as though im getting any of crypto's benefits.

Not sure if thats general thinking, but it is at least mine.

So much wrong information...

Ripple Inc only controlled all validating nodes until stable third party nodes were established. Each node decides which other nodes to trust. There is a default Unique Node List (trusted nodes) provided by Ripple. But, the UNL is not a list of all validating nodes.

At this time Ripple only controls 39% of nodes on the default UNL. If Ripple Inc turned to dust the XRP network would continue on.

https://minivalist.cinn.app/

No entity, not even Ripple Inc., can freeze XRP or prevent you from sending it. Assets can be frozen by the issuing entity but XRP cannot ever be frozen.

I don't think stablecoins are true cryptocurrencies no. Ripple is absolutely not.

IOTA has said you should consider a transaction confirmed if their centrally controlled coordinator has accepted it. So no it's not a cryptocurrency as they should be decentralized.

I agree - I think there's a very important to differentiate between cryptocurrencies and digital assets

IOTA is moving towards an open source coordinator (released today on github), and eventually coordicide (which is what it sounds like). It's been the goal of the project from day one. Bitcoin had checkpoints when it started; the coordinator is analogous to checkpoints. Wouldn't touch XRP with a ten foot pole, though.

Checkpoints prevents the chain from being reorganized after a large number of confirmations have already passed. This is to prevent several days of transactions from being reversed.

IOTA's coordinator in contrast defines when a transaction can be considered confirmed.

They are nothing alike.

Hence the word analogous. They are both training wheels for their respective networks.

A checkpoint is in no way training wheels. It's for additional security.

Right. Perhaps comparing the coo to checkpoints isn't an apt analogy. However, the intent is the same. Without a coo, transactions would be probabilistic and confirmed once they went above a cumulative weight threshold, but the transaction volume is still too low to prevent a Sybil attack, hence the coo. It's still an open question whether or not the tangle can function coo-less, but it makes for an interesting experiment.

Yes, if you can't recognize XRP as the shitcoin it is, you really should get out of crypto. Maybe you can get lucky trading it, but it doesn't offer anything useful.

99% of coins are bewilderingly shitty.