Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Socrates

  1. Current volume data: { "candlesticks": [{ "close": "33.878000", "high": "34.722000", "low": "33.878000", "open": "34.700000", "timestamp": "2019-07-31T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "12493.000000" }, { "close": "33.750000", "high": "34.237000", "low": "33.721000", "open": "34.000000", "timestamp": "2019-08-01T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "84820.000000" }, { "close": "33.648000", "high": "33.730000", "low": "33.000000", "open": "33.730000", "timestamp": "2019-08-02T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "168729.000000" }, { "close": "34.224000", "high": "34.224000", "low": "31.000000", "open": "33.881000", "timestamp": "2019-08-03T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "799084.000000" }, { "close": "34.000", "high": "34.200", "last_tick_id": 33, "low": "32.139", "open": "33.700", "timestamp": "2019-08-05T00:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "43849" }], "request_id": 14, "type": "candlestick_recap" } Notice how we don't see 2019-08-04 mentioned in that list. Either they had issues and are not showing it or they've consolidated it into the 2019-08-03 timestamped data (that timestamp can be when they started counting that period). Since on 2019-08-04 we could see at least a volume of 505k, 2019-08-03 is showing 799k XRP and the previous day to that was 168K XRP, I wouldn't be surprised if they've taken the period from 2019-08-03 15:00:00 UTC to 2019-08-05 00:00:00Z into consideration for the 799k XRP (~294k for the 3rd of August + ~505k for the 4rd of August).
  2. Their 1D (1 day) candle graph isn't returning the volume for the 4th of August and they went into maintenance less than an hour ago and came back. However their trade list is now empty and their API is returning an empty list of trades, so they either made it do that for non-logged in users or they were having issues around it and disabled it (or perhaps it only returns trades made during today, and none were made so far?). In any case, here are the values they use on the 1D candle graph: { "candlesticks": [{ "close": "33.878000", "high": "34.722000", "low": "33.878000", "open": "34.700000", "timestamp": "2019-07-31T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "12493.000000" }, { "close": "33.750000", "high": "34.237000", "low": "33.721000", "open": "34.000000", "timestamp": "2019-08-01T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "84820.000000" }, { "close": "33.648000", "high": "33.730000", "low": "33.000000", "open": "33.730000", "timestamp": "2019-08-02T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "168729.000000" }, { "close": "34.224000", "high": "34.224000", "low": "31.000000", "open": "33.881000", "timestamp": "2019-08-03T15:00:00Z", "type": "candlestick", "volume": "799084.000000" }], "request_id": 16, "type": "candlestick_recap" } P.S.: Trading history is back.
  3. As @Janno said, the volume has been jumping quite decently each day and there was a big one today, with also big trades: 48k, 40k, 2 x 30k XRP in the last 100 trades alone (to a total volume of ~505k XRP). There are several reasons to explain this, but it would be speculation. What's important is that we went from a handful of trades a few days ago to hundreds now. If the trends continues in the next week (big if), they could get to BitBank's level soon. For now it's still low, but also remember that, as stated in their earnings presentation, they are not doing any signup or trading campaign just yet, as they've deferred that to the Autumn.
  4. Regarding the confusion around whether or not they are accepting new accounts, this is what the English slides say on page 72 (my highlighting, underlining): "(...) the full-scale acquisition of accounts and service promotion will start in earnest from this autumn, (...)" Since that is under "Regarding promotions", my interpretation is that it refers to customer acquisition campaigns (marketing, rewards, etc), and not if one is allowed to register or not. The signup page (and VC Trade Pro's section) seems to be working, but I guess only people living in Japan can confirm they are able to open an account and trade in the new platform. Also remember that it's very unlikely this will move the price on its own in a sustainable way in the short-term. What SBI is trying to do is to create an interconnected ecosystem with a focus in Japan (and then expand from there) and that takes time and is not bound by the speculative interest of people outside Japan longing a digital asset, who are mostly not going to interact with that ecosystem directly.
  5. Indeed, although when you mentioned "XRP Community" my first thought was only the HODLers, not the traders. When looking at the current XRP volume by currency (as reported to CryptoCompare - so it will be missing some data points), I think that our current main issue is perhaps the lack of trades using fiat, though we are probably one of the best positioned assets, since except for BTC, most of the the other ones are a lot worse on that metric. The big money will most likely not come from the early adopting retail investors, and despite needing more than one hand to count the years that this market has been going for, it's still fairly early.
  6. Mind expanding this thought? What are we offering? What do you mean by "exchange liquidity"? XRP? Fiat? What are the requirements for xRapid to be a success?
  7. When Ripple Trade was shutting down, they provided an easy way of migrating to GateHub. However in the email, after explaining that option, they also said: with "other wallet providers" being a link, which unfortunately was tied to their CRM system and is no longer valid. No one recommended (and the argument for saying they encouraged is also debatable, weak IMO) anyone to migrate to GateHub. These are snapshots of the "How to Buy XRP" page from ripple.com on August 2017 and December 2017. - https://web.archive.org/web/20170810092028/https://ripple.com/xrp/buy-xrp/ - https://web.archive.org/web/20171211225351/https://ripple.com/xrp/buy-xrp/ I can count 15 options (believe they were all exchanges), with Bitstamp, Kraken, Gatehub, and btcxIndia taking the first row. Ripple is not in the business of being charitable to speculators for mistakes of others. Also, this has been debated numerous times in our community, but also the wider digital asset community: exchanges and online wallets have risks and leaving your digital assets in them is subject to said risks. Even if for some reason you don't want to have and manage your own offline/hardware wallet (fear of losing the seed, trojans, etc), leaving all your eggs in one basket is also a questionable decision.
  8. That would be true if those were Ripple products and Ripple's product teams incorporating those. They aren't, therefore the comparison doesn't make sense. Ripple doesn't seem to be widening its area of focus or muddling its vision, since these are investments in other companies which are not taking time from Ripple's product teams (that seem to still be focused on delivering on Ripple's vision). The way I interpret this, despite like most not having enough information, is that it's about creating an ecosystem and having a seat at the table, which may become valuable later for several reasons (some of which people have already mentioned).
  9. https://ripple.com/insights/ripple-escrows-55-billion-xrp-for-supply-predictability/ - DEC 07, 2017 (my emphasis & underline) You could argue from this that they are still keeping what they originally promised (which is different from what people assume/perceive/interpret). They are using it, just not necessarily selling it. Even if there were any legal contract binding this, most contracts are allowed to be terminated or amended, especially given changes in conditions. Agree that Ripple could communicate better and more clearly, but as conditions change, it's normal for tactics to also change, while keeping in line with the vision and strategy. Also keep in mind that if Ripple were to force the whole monthly billion of XRP, that is released each month from escrow, into the market (sales, incentives, etc), it would be much worse for the short term price.
  10. (my emphasis & underline) Might be misunderstanding your intention with that statement, but the value you used there to try and determine the price per XRP omitted the Programatic sales' income ($107.49 million), which is separate from the Institutional direct sales ($61.93 million), but is still part of the XRP sales from the same pot. That last phrase could mean that they may have not sold (directly to institutions + programmatic) all of the 700 million XRP that didn't return to the escrow (and that you've assumed it was all sold). If this is confirmed, then the average price becomes much greater than the $0.24 ≈ (Institutional + Programmatic sales) / 700 million XRP would indicate (if all 700 million had been sold), which on its own is already much greater than the $0.08 you mention.
  11. https://ripple.com/insights/q1-2019-xrp-markets-report/ Institutional direct sales: $61.93 million. Programatic sales: $107.49 million. Also, note the last phrase regarding the 700 million:
  12. Your in that context was rhetorical, not necessarily you. Didn't take long for you to make me question if it should've been rhetorical at all.
  13. Data is useless if your assumptions when interpreting it are incorrect. Also most data collected by tools we use is only a window into some aspects of reality, missing important information surrounding and intersecting our data points.
  14. If you do it in the open market in one go you create a buy wall, which can pressure the price to move above it depending on sentiment. Depth graphs give you an idea of what would happen. You could stagger it, but that still somewhat pressures the price up (clear steps in a depth graph). There's also exchange fees to take into account. With OTC you guarantee a price for the whole purchase volume and could even save when you take into account the exchange fees.
  15. Failing to see the point of this thread, except for venting and scapegoating due to the frustration of not understanding investments and thinking we would get yet another big bubble (or larger). From what I've been able to read, some company over 3 years ago bought XRP as part of a basket to back their token. Ripple had little incentive to sell it below the market price because even if the company didn't agree and went to the exchanges, Ripple would just sell it there. But even so, let's assume they might have done a small discount OTC (as with any bulk purchase of anything). So what? If one is complaining because an entity has bought it cheap, as many others also did in the open market, and has been taking profits, then what is that person planning on doing with their XRP? Digital collectible? If one is complaining about Ripple having an OTC, then I've got some bad news for them: if one wants the big banks and investment firms to come along, where does one think they'll start getting their XRP from? Will it be bad for us that they won't be buying from unregulated exchanges with mostly poor AML/KYC? Might seem so at first, but that would mean they are in, they are trading, they are using it, be it for cross-border transfers, futures, ETFs, ETNs, ETPs, derivatives, bonds, etc, and these are just direct usage. That'll be another milestone achieved, because eventually their XRP will be traded along our XRP as exchanges bring their regulatory compliance up to speed with any other more traditional trading platform. In the mean time, be it OTC, investing with other companies with XRP, it's XRP getting into the market and circulating, reducing the hoard Ripple has while having the money invested back into the ecosystem that will be the foundation of utility (directly using XRP or indirectly), which is more one could say about block rewards and transaction fees in other digital assets. Has Ripple made mistakes? I'm sure they did. If you are not making mistakes and failing, you are not trying hard enough, not going far enough, not pushing the boundaries and redefining them. Hindsight 20/20 but reality is that we make decisions based on the information we are able to collect at the time, to the best of our knowledge then. Digital assets are still a very high risk investment. If one doesn't understand the journey they've signed up for when they bought XRP as a long and doesn't have the mental stamina and clarity to endure these swings while keeping their sanity and able to handle any frustration that arises... Then seek help from trained professionals to advise on what to do. Going to leave here two images of the XRP/USD price from CoinMarketCap, looking at the reported consolidated prices from 2013 up until April 2017 and the second one from February 2017 until December 2017. Please note that the scales of the two images are different and also note the decimal places on each also.
  16. A few comments on all this. Unless one knows the details of the contracts defining the conditions of these investments, or the roadmaps of each of the projects, then it's not constructive to criticise them, especially this harshly. Even if some of these companies' primary objective is not the XRPL ecosystem, investing in projects that, after research and analysis, seem to be quite promising is a way to get a seat at the table as an investor. This means the ability to at least be heard not as a random company without any skin in the game, but as a company which invested in the project. This increases the probability of successfully influence the development of the company to their favour. Everyone that invested in XRP knew, or should've researched enough to know, that Ripple and some other parties hold a very large amount of XRP and that Ripple in particular will use it in a way they deem useful for the company and the ecosystem. This will not be done in a timescale aimed fulfil the hopes and dreams of some that just want to get rich quick and aren't contributing with anything but some liquidity (for those depositing fiat and buying XRP, not for those trading between digital assets) to the system. It will be done in a timescale defined by sustainable development and building solid foundations that are not purely based on speculation. This takes time, as anyone who has tried, or followed any company trying, to change an industry that doesn't move fast like some tech companies do (and even tech companies took their time to reach the current time-to-disruption). Any XRP sold within this context means more XRP in circulation in the markets and less accumulated by a single entity. This may be painful in the short term for some, but has the potential to become healthier in the long term. Just a reminder that Bitcoin and Ethereum (among others), to some extent, also release more units of their native assets into the market via block rewards & transaction fees (which are awarded without the entity paying any fiat for them, instead they will be the ones selling it for fiat to pay their running expenses). If you are trying to get rich quickly and becoming frustrated, then perhaps this is not your asset. If you are willing to wait years more to see a sustainable rise in the value of this digital asset, in a way that improves the lives of people via the services it has made more efficient and cheaper, then just put things into perspective, relax, and enjoy the ride.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  • Create New...