Jump to content


Bronze Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About enrique11

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3,155 profile views
  1. I like that the FCA, a regulatory body for the United Kingdom, doesn't think XRP is a security, but I would prefer that an analogous American financial regulatory body would have the same opinion, like the SEC, but the SEC can't even decide if ETH is a security or not, and they won't render a decision anytime soon. Also, they have indicated that more stringent crypto regulations would be forthcoming in the future, and the SEC is very slow to change their ways - they will not make an exception for this new asset class called cryptos.
  2. OK, so I voted "other", and that "other" is that a court rules that XRP is not a security.
  3. My fear has for a long time has been that the US generally sees cryptos as a threat, not just bitcoin, but any crypto that can ultimately take value away from US fiat, interfere with US monetary policy, and affect USD global influence. Anyway, if a company decides to build on top of a public 'blockchain' like IBM, SatoshiPay, etc. have done with the Stellar network, does that make XLM a security. No, I really don't think so because then any company that uses a public crypto in this manner and dominates it or not automatically turns that public crypto into a security, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I''m sure they're are companies building on top of Ethereum, but that doesn't make Ether a security. In the case of Ripple, it was gifted XRP, and then decided to build some of its banking products on top of the public XRP network, so XRP shouldn't be a security either even if for argument's sake XRP is the only company building on top of it and holds most of the XRP.
  4. Yes, I think the US regulators let us all down. I don't think Brad foresaw the SEC dropping the ball like that. The US SEC basically sat on its ass while some other countries 'saw the light', taking the initiative and risk to deal with the regulatory issues in a much more constructive way early on.
  5. Speaking of Trump, the 2020 elections could potentially be very important for cryptos. The Trump administration has basically taken a hands off wait and see approach with respect to regulations on cryptos in spite of the negative rhetoric from Mnution and even Trump himself. If the Democrats get into power in the 2020 elections, we could see regulations on cryptos take a drastic turn for the worse since the Democrats are generally pro-regulations and the left-leaning ones who are generally worse in that regard are dominating the narrative and platform this election cycle. You might think this will not affect XRP and its price because it tries to be very compliant and is pro-establishment, but altcoins' prices are still very highly correlated to BTC's price, particularly with BTC currently dominating the global crypto market at over 60%, and the BTC halving will occur next year around June, about half a year before the presidential election, and if the Democrats win, their victory will occur over a year in advance before BTC prices are likely to take off once more at the end of 2021, similarly as they did in 2017. With the "right" regulations here in the US after their win, the Democrats can significantly affect the tail end of the 4-yr BTC price cycle for the worse, bringing BTC's price down and altcoins' prices along with it even worse, including XRP, for God knows how long, 'til a recovery occurs, possibly much later. I'm not saying this is a given, but it's definitely a possibility to consider seriously, IMO, the implications of a left-leaning Democratic presidential win, particularly with the significantly left-leaning Elizabeth Warren in the lead: https://www.vox.com/2019/8/6/20757406/warren-biden-sanders-democratic-presidential-polls https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/448768-the-rise-of-elizabeth-warren-spells-bad-news-for-the-democratic-party https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/elizabeth-warren-john-delaney-big-ideas-democratic-debate/
  6. Stop $18,000,000,000 worth of XRP sales for the sake of the XRP speculators in spite of the fact that Ripple might need that XRP for more partnerships, liquidity provisioning, and other expenses. Yeah, I'm sure Ripple thinks that's a great idea.
  7. Thanks. I think these employees that left went on to form Coil, Xpring, etc. and back then Garlinghouse had emphasized the "peanut butter manifesto" so much in the media, that such departures for Ripple from what had been Ripple's primary focus for so long, cross-border TXs for banks, had me concerned because that XRP ecosystem was not developed yet with bank customers (using XRP), and all of a sudden, Ripple stopped talking about it, and focused instead on the adoption of XRP via other use cases after Brad had talked so much in public about just focusing on and mastering one use case in his 'peanut butter manifesto'. Yes, it's typical to pay exchanges for listings, but my concern back then was that Ripple seemed to be willing to pay whatever to get listings according to media sources, even if the exchanges weren't ready or didn't want to hold XRP for whatever reasons; e.g., XRP not being regarded as a cryptocurrency or being regarded a security. True. Ripple approached banks with XRP as a solution, and Ripple quickly learned that the banks couldn't hold XRP because of regulatory uncertainty and the fact that crypto is a small part of the concerns of the SEC and the SEC is generally very slow to change. Unfortunately, we must count on some workaround in the meantime because the SEC won't get up off its ass anytime soon to help Ripple realize its original use case by clarifying if and how banks can hold XRP on their balance sheets. The SEC has banks too scared with regulatory uncertainty, and the SEC likes to have the upper hand when enforcing, so regulatory uncertainty gives them the leeway to act on enforcement and keep FIs in line because the FIs don't know if they are breaking the rules, so this makes the FIs cautious to begin with, making the SEC's job significantly easier - the SEC is a powerful, but small agency so this regulatory uncertainty makes them appears as a little guy carrying a big, big stick - it makes up for their small size IMO, helping them manage the myriad of regulatory issues they have to deal with of which crypto is a small part - and at the same time unfortunately as a consequence of this uncertainty, the SEC inhibits domestic innovation in crypto and scares away domestic crypto upstarts to other countries that have clearer regulations. And more importantly, the US is the envy of the world when it comes to their successful capital markets, so they don't want to "fix it if it ain't broke" by introducing regulatory exceptions for this new asset class called cryptos - the SEC will take its sweet time and see how crypto regulatory experimentation works out first in other countries, and then act if they have to if cryptos begin to succeed in those countries. Also, they (the current administration, the fed, etc.) want to protect the dollar both at home and abroad, so basically what I'm saying is that there are a number of strong incentives for keeping the status quo in regulations on crypto here in the US. Yes, things look better now - much better, but let's see if this '3rd party non-bank facilitation of cross-border payment using XRP' workaround can develop and scale significantly to realize Ripple's original, primary vision of XRP's use for banks.
  8. For those like me who don't know who Westpac is: Source is wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westpac
  9. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit if FIs push for heavy regulations. By "level playing field" the FIs who lobby the government and the government itself mean making cryptos play by the same standards as banks, with banks being among the most regulated of the FIs. Then regular people can't afford to run lightning nodes, ILP connectors, become stake pool operators, etc. if the regulators decided to be heavy handed in their definition of an MSB, for example. Then it makes it very costly to run these things even if you're an FI like a crypto startup because the market is not mature enough to support such expensive compliance costs. The obstacles to getting an MSB licsense: https://www.suretybonds.com/blog/the-quick-guide-to-money-transmitter-licenses/ 1. Register with FinCEN (potentially severe penalties if you are an MSB who is not registered with them). 2. Average application fee for an MSB license is 175,000 USD initially with annual renewal fees averaging 135,000 USD. 3. Become bonded as an MSB (insurance against the property owner; i.e., this protects investors' money that passes through the MSB's 'hands'.). This has its own costs as well. https://www.suretybonds.com/blog/the-quick-guide-to-money-transmitter-licenses/ : What is a money transmitter?: 4. Both surety bonds and MSB licensing have additional conditions for the applicant like 'financial health', net worth, recent and projected annual business revenues, etc. I'm not trying to scare anyone. My point is just to make it clear how draconian US compliance standards are for cryptos depending on how regulatory agencies apply the definitions, and to what degree these regulations and the new standards will be rigged in favor of FIs with deep pockets. That's why you see most crypto related companies targeting developing countries and avoiding countries like the US because emerging markets in these developing countries generally don't have such insane regulations that favor the financially strongest institutions.
  10. No, I see it as USA down the drain, long term. Important people read the WSJ - people who have money, power, and influence. A full page ad in the WSJ will get some of that group's members attention - by the way, that mostly black and white ad costs around $200,000 :O It's a public relations kind of thing, targeting the wealthy and influential so they see Ripple apart from other cryptos, including Libra, IMO, emphasizing that Ripple only wants to play by the rules and help the legacy system compete and upgrade to modern standards (like the internet) using blockchain tech. It makes me worried for the future stance US regulatory agencies will adopt toward cryptos, and if that attitude will spread globally to other countries because of the US's influence. I fear scarier US regulations will come to bear down on cryptos in the future - Mnution said more regulations are in store, and overregulation is being suggested (e.g., FATF), so it doesn't look good at all. With the next wave of regulations the SEC adopts they could assume a stricter stance, like requiring a money service business license on lightning nodes, ILP connectors, etc. regardless if you're profitable or not because in their eye's you'll be a "money transmitter" by receiving and sending other people's "money". I think they are trying to protect the dollar's position globally by making it difficult for cryptos to succeed in the US, and by extension, make crypto adoption harder abroad through global influence. They can't put a stop to Bitcoin, but because Ripple is working within the system, and located in the US, they can certainly affect Ripple if they want to and its ecosystem with strict regulations.
  11. From Yahoo Finance, "The company reports that it raised over $250 million in the second quarter of 2019 but that it will be selling a lot less of its stash moving forward." I see it as very good news. I think it has less to do with transparency and much more to do with critical mass. I think it indicates that the ecosystem Ripple has built has reached critical mass and they don't need revenue like before from OTC XRP sale - the open markets are mature enough. Ripple ecosystem is self-sustaining now, and it will grow on its own through increased utility and network effects of its customers. The cut in sales should affect the price of XRP positively. Recall just a short while ago how Brad said they were having their best week in sign-ups shortly after Facebook had announced it's plan to launch Libra. Ripple is now entrenched in this space like BTC and ETH, in my opinion.
  12. Bitcoin maximalism tends to drive people to madness.
  13. So do I, but given the US administration's lack of support for cryptos in general, including XRP, they might curtail its use by FIs both domestically and abroad, or at least discourage its use given the facts that US wants to maintain the dollar as a global reserve currency, our country has tons of debt, a number of politicians in our country see BTC as a potential threat and by extension other cryptos as well, including XRP, and the US's lack of control over cryptos' rising popularity, adoption might lead to diminishment of US policy influence both domestically and abroad.
  • Create New...