Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About Socrates

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like I said before, I don't consider an advisory board a project and doubt when anyone says "Ripple is in a project with the IMF" that the majority of other people will think of an Advisory Board. That is however at this point a statement of opinion (mine). It becomes even more likely when people are aware that advisory boards can be formed to help with advice in specific projects. So why did the IMF form this advisory board? I am not aware of a shift in the objectives and would greatly appreciate if anyone could provide me with information regarding that. If anyone is wondering what's the composition of this board at the moment (my highlighting): But if you really want to consider and Advisory Board a project on its own right, then sure... All of these are involved in an IMF project.
  2. Please tell me where from the description of the November 2018 panel (the document you linked/tried to link in one of your comments is for the April's panel): and knowing that it's a panel with representatives of multiple initiatives (Lightning Labs, Zcash, Ripple, Coincenter) moderated by someone that happens to be from the IMF, how are you lead to believe that it was plausible for them to talk/announce never-before-announced project that some random people claim Ripple has with the IMF? There was nothing indicating that was even a remote possibility. If anything to that extent had been talked about there, an open session with people tweeting, it wouldn't make the news or Twitter by now? I haven't found anything alleging it. The panel following that one, titled "Evolving Crypto Use Cases", also had an IMF moderator. No Ripple panelist, but had the Head of Regulatory Affairs and Partnerships from R3. Should we also have expected an R3 + IMF centric discussion or announcement? To remind ourselves, my initial comment was to cool down the hype around the panel with Ripple. It was reflected in this excerpt of the original post (that mirrors Ryan Zygone phrasing in Twitter) and that can be misleading, since it lends itself to be interpreted as it was certain there would be an announcement of Ripple collaborating with the IMF on a crypto assets project (not an advisory board): A clearer way of phrasing it was saying it was a discussion about major developments in crypto assets, which would have the presence of several people, IMF included as a moderator, not someone that would be presenting those developments. This is the third time I will be asking you to provide evidence for the statement I have highlighted below. You have so far provided none. I ask that you avoid emotional language and expelatives. This should be an open and respectful discussion. If you continue exhibiting that behaviour I'm afraid I'll opt to end my exchange of arguments with you.
  3. Please quote me ipsis verbis to support your claims. My initial comment on this thread was to post the people involved in the discussion panel and a description of what was planned to be discussed in the panel. Given what was being implied in the original post and Twitter, I then stated "This is not about Ripple working with the IMF, or the IMF using XRP." because that was not stated in the description of the panel's theme nor was there any evidence that it would be discussed as part of it. Just because the moderator works at the IMF should we also assume the IMF was going to announce XRP as a replacement for SDR? You at some point then stated the following (my highlighting): I presented the counter argument that it didn't provide any evidence that Ripple was working in a project with the IMF and that advisory/discussion groups or boards are not projects. You are yet to provide any hard evidence of Ripple working on a project with the IMF as you've stated.
  4. Can see that you fixed the link @ImTheRippler. The program for those sessions (April 2018) can be found here. Ripple is mentioned regarding one of the sessions, described in pages 4 and 5. The session is called "Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), Cross Border Payments and Financial Inclusion" This is the description of the session, taken from the document: This is the summary of what was said in the session (highlight is mine), taken from the document: I cannot find any proof here of Ripple working on a project with the IMF involving XRPL, or Ripple products. @ImTheRippler if you are able to provide any hard evidence of such project, I would greatly appreciate it, because it would be great news for everyone! I'm not saying that a project doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that we cannot claim it exists without evidence. If you have evidence, rather than speculation, please do present it. Our general statements should be driven by facts, not wishful thinking or speculation, otherwise the credibility takes a hit. This is not to say that we can't speculate. I surely do, mostly in private or semi-privately. It can be a useful exercise. However when we do so, it should be clearly flagged as such, rather than a statement of fact by omission of the context.
  5. The attachment wasn't added to the message. Would like to see it, if it clearly names and describes the project which Ripple has with the IMF. Advisory groups/boards are not projects, they are groups/boards.
  6. Is it common for people to list all the things they won't talk about in panels? It would be a long list. Just because the moderator of a discussion panel belongs to the IMF, it doesn't mean the people involved in that panel have an ongoing project with the IMF. Same goes for any FOMO regarding announcements around it.
  7. I linked the preliminary program's PDF and posted an image of it. It's a discussion with several players (Ripple, Lightning Labs, Zcash, etc) moderated by a person that works at the IMF (keyword being moderated). The final program has a description for that panel: - http://dcfintechweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Final-Fintech-Week-2018-Program.pdf
  8. The moderator is from the IMF. The panel will have people from Lightning Labs, ZCash, etc. http://dcfintechweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FTW18_Preliminary_Program_10.11.18.pdf This is not about Ripple working with the IMF, or the IMF using XRP.
  9. They've so far removed $736'678'763.48 - $186'678'763.48 = $550'000'000 from circulation since the 8th of October. Today's screenshot is attached below.
  10. Despite it being a tabloid newspaper, let us remind ourselves that they exist because there are enough people buying them - or enough advertisers thinking that enough people buy them to make it worth paying for advertisement. Facts become irrelevant in a discussion if people are convinced otherwise and cannot see them as facts, so we shouldn't shrug off these pieces of (des/mis)information just because of where they are coming from, since they will plant the seed for the wrong ideas and notions to grow. If there are mechanisms by which you are able to request clarification or retractions, do use them.
  11. In addition to the Ripple and xRapid part, other people in the community have highlighted another interesting part of this, which is Vinny Lingham stating that «(...) Miners need to sell, just in Bitcoin alone, somewhere in the region of $200M worth of Bitcoin a month, just to basically cover their cost. (...)». It starts at around the 11 minutes mark.
  12. Not so much if: they are using a VPN with a good provider especially if paid with harder to trace payment methods; account is registered with a single usage email address; while commenting in the forum they managed (haven't checked) to steer away from giving nuggets of information that could lead to their identity; They are still creating a footprint, but one that is harder to connect to real world identity. Of course the more they write, the easier it is to use writing/speech analysis software. But even for that you still need something to test it against and even then it may be a false positive. Remember that the XRPL is public and you can follow the XRP flow. Moving it from an exchange to an account and back to an exchange leaves a trace, lost within the exchange, but the nugget of information is uncovered if you publicise that that account, or any directly funded by it, is yours on Twitter, Facebook, Forums, etc, closer to your real identity. [/tinfoilhat] P.S.: It's sensible to be cautious, but it's not the end of the world if your identity is uncovered. Be alert, be cautious but don't let that lead you to a paranoid spiral that will cause a lot more damage to your mental health (and then physical) than any potential targeted attack would have.
  13. Just a small correction: it has been around for more than two years, at least for transfers within participating banks in the UK. I've personally used it frequently in the past (over the last 6 years) between two UK bank accounts, with the money being transferred (for all practical purposes) instantly. Believe it was officially launched back in 2008.
  14. Independently of how we feel, perhaps this isn't the right place to discuss this?
  15. Believe the issue rises when an hypothesis starts being presented as a(n almost) certainty. I also enjoy reading narratives that try to connect several aspects of our societies, showing how some things may affect the others and drawing attention to the small things that escape a lot of people. However I start to take issue when the person abandons the realm of possibility and starts using a language of certainty. That, for me, is a red flag that they'll ignore/omit relevant facts that don't fit their narrative and only search and take into account those that seem to support their case. P.S.: Unfortunately, in some of the texts I've read, I've seen that red flag.
  • Create New...