Jump to content


Bronze Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About enrique11

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,374 profile views
  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 governm
  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
  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
  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 t
  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
  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 th
  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
  • 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.