Jump to content

enrique11

Bronze Member
  • Posts

    1,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About enrique11

Recent Profile Visitors

4,488 profile views

enrique11's Achievements

  1. They surely wasted our f&cking time. I came back to this forum in late 2017 just to see what the SEC was up to with cryptos. After all these years, they have f&cked us over royall and f&cked up royally as well. Have they no sense how important and critical cryptos will be to the new emerging political and financial global order?!? Some Asian country will run away with this tech and use it the way it was intended to be used. The US is becoming a regressive crony capitalist system. Your typical American citizen doesn't matter any more. It's just more and more and more government, and a destructive symbiotic relation between government insiders and the corporate board members and their loser lobbyists and the revolving door between them (76% of federal politicians go into lobbying after leaving office, a number of which will wind up with executive positions at the very corporations whose lobbyists supported them. If you are a good politician with a good heart, you don't last long outside of this crony capitalist system because you won't get the support of the corporations, so your support will have to come from the people, and people don't have that kind of money to throw around, nor the time, to become informed and challenge the paid lobbyists that go to argue on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Whether your a good person or a good politician, the system is rigged. The good guys wind up losing in the end, and there's no way to change it.
  2. I didn't know Dennis Quaid was into cryptos...lol, cryptos have come a lonng way since the early days of BTC.
  3. They somehow think crypto pose a threat to the legacy financial world...the US is in for a very rude awakening because of our ignorant politicians and their focus on keeping the US dollar in the lead through legacy means.
  4. When it comes to crytos, I put on a tin-foil hat too sometimes. What did we get out of the SEC after all these years?! That bitcoin isn't a security. What a waste of our time.
  5. I think it went to federal court -guessing - because the company deals with clients nationally, internationally, beyond the judicial jurisdiction of local or even state-wide legal authorities. That or a potential security was involved, which probably goes to federal court. I don't know. What I do know is that this too important an issue for the future of cryptographic technology in the US for a small-claims court to settle because of they monetary, legal ramifications for everyone involved, except Coffey who stands to lose the least. Maybe it's a strategic move. Get this issue out of the way early, so Ripple can more easily flourish as a company globally without the securities ambiguity at home.
  6. Oh shiaatttt is right, as in MicroShiaatttt! Microsoft is the King of closed-source BS. A lot of these banks will have to learn the hard way, and rightly so - they deserve to get milked by Microsoft. The old financial system with its free-money printing press is going the way of the dinosaur as is the King of closed-source (patent pending) bullsh*t software, MicroShiaatttt. It's bad enough Microsoft has gotten away with making crap software for so many years, but now they are going to combine their closed source software with the movement of large sums of money!? That's as smart an idea as drinking and driving.
  7. That's a quote from Elaine Shi, with whom I agree as it pertains to global distributed systems like cryptos. You don't want to make software coding too complex and lengthy when designing these system, or make the systems too complex to where they can't do their job properly, like Bitcoin, that does transactions too slowly to be of use for quick, everyday purchases, so it required additional complexity in the form of "Lightning Network" in order to work as intended.
  8. CBDC's are for governments to have control over and issue, to regulate their supply and demand and thus affect their value, to allow the government some control over the economic state of their country, to use internally among their various federal agencies to allow those agencies to make payments among themselves and to others either domestically or internationally. Governments can't do that using XRP. They don't have control over supply and demand of XRP, and besides, it's a third-party solution not built for, maintained by, and controlled by the government, so those are other reason for them not to use it. You just can't delete and create currencies, that would affect the value of one currency via deflation (whenever you 'delete') and decrease the value of the other currency via inflation (whenever you 'create'), affecting domestic economic policies unintentionally by affecting the values of their currencies. You could do the next best thing which is to exchange one currency for another, but there are almost two hundred countries, If they're 3 people using three native currencies, then a<>b, a<>c, b<>c can exchange, but if there are four currencies, then we have the following possible exchanges/swaps: a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d. It's not 4 possible exchanges like in the case of 3 currencies, but it's 6: 3+2+1=6, so for 195 countries we have 19,110 possible pairwise-exchange of currencies provided each country has only one native currency. Now let's go back to the 3 people case but introduce a fourth currency so we have a 4-currency exchange situation, except this time the fourth currency is nation-neutral and owned or controlled by no single government - just a pool of currency that everyone decides to use as a medium of exchange for their native currencies. Let's call this fourth currency 'x', then the possible exchanges among the three currencies are a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; b<>x, x<>c. You have twice as many possible exchanges of currencies, but these compound exchanges I listed in order previously are equivalent to the exchanges made without the fourth currency (a<>b, a<>c, b<>c), but all possible exchanges of fiat currency in the 3 people/county 3 native currency scenario. Now let's go to case where you have 4 people and 5 currencies. Then the possible exchanges of fiat currencies using currency 'x' are a<>x, x<>b; a<>x,x<>c; a<>x, x<>d; b<>x, x<>c; b<>x, x<>d; c<>x, x<>d. 12 exchanges or 6 compound exchanges and the 6 compound exchanges are equivalent to the 6 original currency swaps: a<>b, a<>c, a<>d, b<>c, b<>d, c<>d. So, things look more complicated now because you're doing twice as many exchanges by introducing a new currency instead of half the number of swaps you had originally. So where's the advantage in this? Well, think of the x pool as a telephone system and a MM (market maker) as a 'telephone operator' that makes a call from a to b and vice versa possible or and exchange of voice data between 'a' and 'b': a<>b. You don't need 19,110 separate 'connections' for 'communication' to occur between 195 different countries because there is a company that decided to creates a switching network called 'operator x' that holds currencies from all countries including it's own native currency 'x'. person 'a' connects to operator 'x', operator 'x' connects to person 'b', so 'a' and 'b' can 'communicate' or exchange voice information (a<>b). Now, instead of needing 19,110 separate connections, you only need each person/country to connect to operator/pool x. Still you have twice as many exchanges as before, in compound form, but only 195 connections are needed c1<>x, c2<>x, ..., c195 <>x. So you have the same amount of money available but using far less exchanges, so you have a lot more money to distribute among far less connections, so you greatly increase the potential liquidity among these far less connections in number, allowing for a much greater potential to do exchanges on demand without the currencies losing or gaining significant value. Say the total value of all currencies of the 195 countries is 1,000,000 USD, just using a small number for example. If that value were distributed evenly among pairwise exchanges, each exchange pool of the 19,110 for pairwise exchange would only have $26 dollars available on average on each side of the 19,110 trading connections for exchange purposes, but let's suppose that 1,000,000 USD were divided equally between the 'x' pool and 195 countries (with 'x' pool holding a significant portion of currencies from 195 countries as well as a significant amount of value of currency 'x'), then this would provide up to approximately 99 times the amount and value than is available in the pairwise exchange case. lol...this is just my opinion...using 'my' math and logic, so someone will have to verify the math and logic. Note: It has up to 99x the value of pairwise exchanges of currencies (pairwise connections) pot because half the pot of one million goes to 195 countries and the other half goes to 'x' pool in the form of 195 currencies + xrp. Which means each country has 2564 USD in possession to trade. They have up to 99x potential of trading amount and value if they use 100% for trading. Say each country uses only 10% of 2564 USD for trading internationally - that's still almost 10 times the amount that would be available for trading on average at 100% capacity of $26/each side of trading connection/pool of the 19,110 pairwise trading possibilities.
  9. The make a lot of reasonable valid points in the article. I still think XRP has only one use case - as a bridging currency for currency swaps (fiat or otherwise). This single use case can manifest itself in various forms. They should focus on new use cases that legacy systems can't touch, and start off with a niche market while continuing to onboard banks with their Ripple products, so when the crypto sh*t hits the fan, the banks won't be caught off guard and they will be able to keep up with the new cryptographic financial system.
  10. Cryptos succeeding in the public sector will get the FIs off their @sses verrrry quickly. So, the sooner this space succeeds, the better XRP, XLM looks to FIs to survive this basic transition from legacy financial world to new crytpo financial world They will still be old tech because of all the physical infrastructure that comes with traditional FIs - so much overhead for maintenance of legacy infrastructure. Those legacy FIs that don't see the spelling on the wall will have wished they looked into cryptos sooner. I'm sure a number of them will die off for lacking the foresight to see the coming change globally.
  11. The thing is 3 years is not enough to build a first-rate crypto product. Cardano which IMO is the best crypto project in existence, not financial advice lol, has taken 5 years to reach decentralization because of the lengthy process of writing mathematical papers for submission to various highly respected crypto organizations for peer review in the field of cryptography, having accepted (which is a very good sign of a high quality project), and then either having them accepted or return for admendments and resubmission - it can be a lengthy process, so 3 years will limit crypto products to the standard non-scientific path to building a crypto product in which you code first and fix problems later. Ripple's approach was asks questions first and find answers, so there are less problems to fix later and their product is optimized out of the box, at least theoretically.
  12. Good News related to SEC about cryptos in general: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-mom-sec-commissioner-hester-pierce-voted-in-until-2025 Didn't have time to read the article, but here's the first except that caught my attention: I wonder what other good proposals she's brought to the table. It definitely seems like she's on our side. Yay! It's about f'ing time we have someone there that understands the importance of this space and how to proceed without wrecking value building.
  13. No, it's cool man. No worries. I didn't take it in a bad way. I didn't mean anything too by saying "let me think about your post tomorrow". It's actually quite late here and I spent time trying to make sense of your post wondering why you got so many likes, but I couldn't understand what you were saying. I need a nap. Maybe I'll understand things better in the morning.
  14. I guess you were clear, but I was thinking along a different line of reasoning, so that's probably why I couldn't make sense of it - it didn't reconcile with my reasoning of why Ripple purchased XRP at a premium on the open market. Let me think about your new post tomorrow.... it's late over here ;P lol...I stayed up late just to respond to your post 'cause I was confused. Thanks for the reply.
  15. Why buy XRP on the open market at such a high premium when Ripple can simply remove XRP from their own monthly stash that's always readily available and at a value that's far below open market value - it's actually free? Did they prohibit themselves from using their own escrowed XRP, forcing themselves to buy it at a premium on the open market? - that doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when Ripple owns over half the supply - I don't understand what you mean specifically by "operational reasons", Ripple's operations or their customers'? I don't understand your argument because I don't know why Ripple must buy XRP at such a high price for "operational reasons". But anyway my argument is that 1) Ripple owns so much XRP to begin with, so why accumulate more at a steep price when you can use what you already own that was given to you for free initially?, and 2) It's more than OK for Ripple to be price effectors under certain circumstances. In fact it's a legal responsibility that they have first and foremost to their customers. Ripple's customers come first, whether they use XRP or not, and one such responsibility could be to keep XRP price from falling if it affects their customers' XRP utility , use case, their bottom line as an XRP customer, etc., regardless of how we non-Ripple "customers" who hold XRP feel about it, or even how Ripple themselves feel about it, even if it gives them the appearance of "price effectors" because Ripple has a legal responsibility to their customers (including XRP customers) first and foremost. So, I think a reasonable argument is that Ripple purchased XRP on the open market at a relatively high price (compared to free XRP) out of a fiduciary responsibility to their XRP customers in order to provide price stability and support for their XRP-customers' operations, and as a side benefit us XRP investors were reassured in XRP's use case by this particular supportive action taken by Ripple. *I don't recall Ripple acting as MM for small payments. I thought the small payments route was self-sufficient, so maybe it's better for Ripple not to interfere, having learned it's lesson from large wholesale swaps, and is now just supporting the use case organically by providing a stable price foundation upon which organic growth can occur among Ripple XRP customers corridors. *Ripple was "buying" XRP, but MMs also "sell" XRP, and no one's mentioned that yet. True, they could be acting as an MM and/or providing price stability and support for their customers, but we don't have enough info to figure out exactly what's going on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.