Jump to content

enrique11

Bronze Member
  • Posts

    1,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by enrique11

  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.
  16. Kiwi, you're finally "talking" after all this time...that caught me off guard. Didn't know you had a "voice"; I was so used to your "confusion emoticons". ;P
  17. lol....I think most of us, particularly the 'old timers' in this space are nuts. We got into cryptos very early when others would laugh in our faces; e.g., our friends, and to a lesser extent our family. We definitely took a similar leap of faith when we got into cryptos so early. At least I can say that for myself. I knew the technology was valuable when I first got into it, but had no clue at the time as to how that value would manifest itself over the long term. It was pure speculation back then...I feel less speculative about it these days, but still a significant doubt about value manifestation in the future and what forms it will take, but not as bad as when I first started out completely clueless if this tech would take off in the future. I saw the value in theory, but not in practice. Hopefully that will change over the next 5 to 10 years.
  18. There is adoption, but XRP's use case is susceptible to global pandemics, particularly the remittance aspect of the use case. That's true. I see it on youtube, but XRP is not the only crypto getting this treatment, many others as well (altcoins) are being hyped because people feel BTC's back in the start of its next bull cycle. I don't think it will be as bad this time because there are a lot more cryptos to choose from now. The global crypto market cap right now is 358B USD. At its peak in 2017 it was 830B USD, the bull run has just started and we've already reached 43% the level of the ATH global market cap, yet that value is spread among many more cryptos now. We also have institutional investors bringing a stabilizing factor to cryptos as well as global regulations, and the pandemic is helping curb "lotto fever". However, you could be right because the bull run in which most cryptos die off hasn't occurred yet, but I think that's due to regulatory uncertainty in most cryptos. Once that's eventually settled and crypto use cases reach significant maturity we might see a final bull run that decides the cream of the crop, and kills off most others. I don't know if the next bull run if there is one that will peak in late 21 will be the deciding one - I doubt it because '21 is a little early for crypto use cases to reach significant maturity, so some subsequent bull run to '21 will likely be the one that decides the major players, I'm guessing at the earliest the bull run in 2025, if BTC is still leading by then. BTC is a fad because it has no use case. It is just a speculative cryptographic asset with scarcity and a store of value use case as a hedge against hyperinflation, and for occasional large-value purchases because of its high fees and slow settlement times; other than that, it's just a speculative asset, whose creation and survival creates huge amounts of waste of resources via it's power needs to keep the network secure. That's the only uses I've seen from BTC other than sketchy silk-road purchases. Many people love it because it's hard for them to forget their first 'love'. Just because you have a favorite "something" that you've had for years doesn't mean it's the best of it's class or will remain that way if it is. XRP and XLM are the two of the few crypto trying to solve one of the biggest existing legacy problems, but other projects like Chainlink for example, are not even solving a legacy problem - it's trying to solve a crypto problem that doesn't really exist yet because crypto is still in its early stages. Same goes for other projects like Golem, which is worse than Chainlink because they haven't figured how to allocate computing resources to construct a global virtual supercomputer in which you can pay for computing time resources. They have to solve that problem first before they can get anywhere with the project. XRP is not BTC. BTC is more about price than XRP although XRP's use case of course works better and better the higher the value XRP goes; however XRPL's security depends very minimally on price, unlike BTC in which the price must be high; otherwise the security of the network can be compromised via a 51% attack, so it always has to work at full power even when no transactions are flowing, as its security is susceptible to lack of mining power at full force at all times which makes it vulnerable if there is ever a very large fall in price. It will play out much sooner than that if regulations don't stall this space a few more years. The infrastructure is already there (internet), it's a matter of building the protocols and then services on them, and seeing new markets grow. I do. I know that BTC's days as a numbered as being ranked #1. It can't stay number one forever. The question is how soon will it lose it's number one position once dapp platforms come into maturity, XRP takes a significant market share from SWIFT, etc? The only way I see BTC staying number one a long time is if it extends it's utility through borrowing it via sidechain from much better networks. But why take a Model A Ford and try to update that car as much as possible knowing that it has a sh*tty PoW foundation. Yeah, you get security, but look at all the expense, and for what? BTC cannot replace fiat. It does not has self-regulating controls over its supply and demand, so it will always behave like stocks, and as it gets bigger market cap it's price will become more stable, but it will still act like a blue-chip stock. The point being, BTC is a very poor replacement for fiat unless you are one of the unfortunate living in places like Venezuela. BTC will provide more hedging functionality as it's price goes up and stabilizes, but that's it - it will not replace fiat. Correction: Comparing BTC to stock is not an accurate comparison. It's a comparison I've done in the past, but don't give it much thought. With stocks, you have underlying ownership of the company and can vote. The company can issue more stocks (inflating the existing circulation), the can do stock buy backs and put them out of circulation temporarily or permanently, deflating the circulation, and increasing the price. They can also do stock splits; e.g., 2-to-1 stock split, doubling the circulating supply by double shareholders stocks. The best comparison I can come up with for BTC is that it is a digital version of a hard commodity like gold, but with a finite and known limited supply, so it's better than gold in that respect. Gold does have value as a scarce commodity particularly because it is resistant to natural degradation over very long periods of times, unlike most other elements (metals) on the periodic table, so it makes it a great long term store of value, but it's better than BTC in that you don't have to spend gobs of cash in electrical costs (using up natural resources actually) to maintain it's scarcity, utility and value.
  19. We'll see. True dat. There aren't too many of those these days, like the 589 club members on this forum - they're in short supply. No, my point was that countries whose economies are good, particularly those with leading economies would not willingly give up financial control to a 3rd-party crypto. Yes, it could be a reserve currency for some countries, but not most...most countries as a collective would not give up their financial power to a 3rd-arty crypto which they can't manipulate as easily, if it ever came to that. I think it will wind up as a corporate reserve currency to be sold for fiat when the price is high in order to raise funds for corporate activities when it's not being used for it's intended bridging purpose - just a wild guess. Yeah, it's called a fad. People are in love with BTC, but when they wake up the morning and see what they did the night before, they'll begin to regret it...lol. Look, have you considered, that mass retail crypto adoption sans XRP, might spur FIs to adopt XRP at a much faster rate than they would have otherwise anticipated because they don't want to be left behind by this quickly growing industry once regulations have basically been settled for most cryptos, particularly FIs that are majorly dependent on legacy systems? We had the biggest economic recession globally not seen in a long time since Covid-19 broke out. I know cryptos are global, and therefore should have the power to overcome national economic issues, but when problems reach global proportions, like Covid-19, not even cryptos are immune.
  20. It could be that the Exodus wallet has its own scheme of obfuscating the private key used to sign transactions, similar to how Bitcoin wallet Electrum, obfuscates the private key by using a multi-word phrase for the wallet as the seed. The electrum wallet, I don't know what version, has an option to expose your private key if you want to see it supposedly. I'm not familiar with Exodus wallet - I have the wallet but never bothered to install it. Check it out if there is option on that wallet to view the private key associated with the public key. Be careful though...it's a good practice to update your OS and virus database and do a scan before opening your wallets in general, particularly if you use windows and your computer for anything other than cryptos. Also I think electrum allows you to open your wallet offline, which is even safer than being online. If exodus has this functionality as well - it's a good practice to use it.
  21. XRP could eventually become the world's first digital reserve currency for some countries in which you have runaway hyperinflation, but I doubt the leading countries economically are ready to put their trust in cryptos, something over which they have no control, unlike fiat, to manipulate for whatever reasons unless they made a collective effort. XRP is deflationary, so countries would want to hold onto it like gold, but I think it would be a long time before countries are ready to put their trust in public crypto, something that's harder for them to control. I'm guessing any country would want it's fiat to dominate globally whether it paper money or cryptographic money, it would be a reflection of the country's government's underlying stability and trustworthy economy backing it up. Yeah, maybe another crypto hype cycle, except I think people will be smarter this time, hopefully less volatility, also contributing to less volatility is that some cryptos are just starting to come into their own with some real basic utility and some people are starting to get a sense of separation of cryptos with utility and those with hype, and the 4-year BTC cycle has a significant logarithmic-like growth, so the 4-year BTC peaks should go lower and lower until BTC price becomes more stable long-term as long as it is not passed by some other crypto, in which case, people will see BTC for the relic that it is. Don't get me wrong, BTC has first mover advantage and more developers than any other crypto, so it's understandable that it has been in first place so long, but if it loses the top position to some other crypto, BTC will not make it back to the top again, regardless how many developers you pour into it - a model T ford can only be improved so far until new technologies make it obsolete. Yes, BTC is software, but it's foundation is built on old tech - we know so much more now in terms of how to build a more efficient crypto protocol with a specific purpose, not one that can only act as a digitally scarce store of value, like a digital version of Gold, except better because we know how many BTC there will ever be, but we still don't know how much gold is left out there in nature. Let's hope so! I'm ready to cash out after so many years.
  22. So OTC sales might hopefully include some institutional wholesale purchases that we were hoping Ripple would provide for in order to compete with SWIFT's larger wholesale markets? And programmatic sales, does that just mean smaller non-OTC sales to SMEs, for example? Hmm, Ripple purchasing XRP on the open market when they already own tons, seems like a way to counteract the leakage in XRP value from Jed's and other partners' XRP sales. If that's the case, it's very reassuring because it shows Ripple still really cares about the XRP use case.
  23. lol...it is, thanks to "BTC breaking prices not seen in a long time" and "XRP lawsuit has been thrown out rumor", but how much of it is due to those two factors vs non-speculative factor(s) dealing with actual XRP utility?
  24. I tend to agree with your assessment of 'planned distribution by sales' to a significant degree because of market performance during that period, that it was a significant overly optimistic and spur-of-the-moment plan based on Ripple's overly optimistic projection a la Hodor because the day this article came out by Ripple, XRP's price had increased over 3400% over the last 18 days - it was XRP's first largest bull run in its history up to that point in time when the article was posted by Ripple. I think the skyrocketing price was the primary impetus for Ripple's plan to put their XRP in escrow much more so than hodlers complaining about Ripple's ability to dilute the value (I wasn't one of the complainers) of XRP by selling it's stash, and I think this article reflects that very optimistic future projection by Ripple of selling half its escrowed stash every month. Ripple's marketcap had gone from 355M to 12.5B over 18 days, or an average increase of 0.674 B USD per day and increasing on average each day up to the release of the article. Had this progression of daily average market cap increase of f 0.674 B USD continued for the entire month, Ripple would have had 20 B USD increase in market cap at the end of the month, or 20x that of Ripple's planned escrowed 1B XRP, and XRP's price at the time the article was written was well below $1 (about 40 cents). So I think when this article came out the reasoning at the time was not unreasonable at all, but overly optimistic over the long term because Ripple hadn't waited for the market to settle back down to get a better idea of projected sales based on institutional demand after a speculative run, but a projected conservative sale of 500M XRP per month (half it's monthly planned escrowed stash) based on the performance of XRP over that 18 day period was quite reasonable at the time the article was posted because even at the high price of 40 cents at the time the article was written, selling 500M XRP per month would have brought in 200M USD over the month. This article came out near the peak of the first largest XRP bull run ever up to that point (May 16, 2017), and subsequently during the start of the largest bullrun in XRP's history so far when the price of XRP had surpassed the peak price of the first bull run, this article came out by Ripple on Dec 15, 2017: https://ripple.com/insights/explanation-ripples-xrp-escrow/ Ultimately IMO, the regulators (SEC in particular) just f&cking dropped the ball big-time by sitting on their @sses, killing the domestic crypto markets, being the primary contributor to the fall of global crypto markets since the beginning of 2018 and lack of institutional interest in XRP ODL reliance, and Ripple's overly optimistic pursuit of large XRP-facilitated currency swaps to compete head-on with SWIFT was likely a contributing factor as well to fall in institutional demand. The decrease in escrowed amount over the last 32-month period was roughly 20%. The pandemic won't help the remittance market either as long as it is not under control.
×
×
  • 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.