Lamberth

I did sell in 2018 and my ROI is more than great. Does not stop me from being angry somehow

Xpring team is so bad in their communication on so many levels. Maybe this is what happens when you don’t have anybody with a development background in the team which is supposedly meant to improve the open-source eco-system. Maybe Xpring guys have forgotten that they work in the company which was once famous for its transparency and honesty. Or just maybe they simply don’t care because Ripple had changed its target operating model and does not build the eco-system anymore? There are too many weird things happened in ~1 year. For me personally it started with Stefan leaving Ripple and the infamous “Head of community”. I have no doubts that David, Nick and other developers are honest in their communications (and just BTW those guys is the real reason why Ripple has been successful so far). But I have my doubts about Ripple as a company lately.

This is a great paper and the classification of money is just brilliant! Thanks, @codiusrex

Thanks, @Roaring_Twenties, interesting video. As an addition to this video I can recommend an article from R3’s Martin Walker. Despite what many community members think of R3, they have a lot of smart guys and truly transformational ideas. This article (indirectly) provides an unusual perspective on Ripple’s “war chest of XRP” and in my mind makes it very positive in the new reality of “instant settlement” (because Ripple’s XRP can be used as a source of instant credit for MMs). As many already understood, this is bad news for HODLers (at least in the short-term) but it makes the eco-system more scalable and reliable (which is great in the long-term). https://www.r3.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Bridging_Gap_R3.pdf

https://whale-alert.io/transaction/tron/a4886e9c1f919e3acb9053b9b05c9df68adc25e71ea3a5f91bb6cb382d208538

I have read your xPool article last year, this is a very interesting idea. Now imagine that instead of using your model as-is, we replace Ripple with a Central bank, exchanges with commercial banks and XRP with “CBDC”. I am not saying that Central banks want to use XRP at this point (or ever). I rather thought they might want to use XRP as a limited proof-of-concept before issuing their own CBDC. In this PoC an algo team together with an exchange (both acting independently of Ripple) might represent a commercial bank tasked to distribute an asset provided by a Central bank. Current XRP’s distribution allows this kind of experiment plus XRP has enough liquidity and market participants already which makes it even more interesting to play with. I would have tried this if I were them, a real-world example supported by a theory is always better than just a theory.

Above I assumed that the bank is acting without a blessing from the financial regulator driven by greed. Risky but not as risky as some might think. We can increase the complexity even more, adding a regulator to the equation. Programmatic sales through algo might be a perfect real-life PoC for CBDC. It would have provided a different perspective on all interactions between Ripple and Central banks, explained sudden deterioration of the quality of XRP quarterly reports and Ripple’s disengagement in general. @KarmaCoverage, @JCCollins, is this too much to assume at this stage?

In the long run - yes, price matters. Right now - not that much IMO (as long as it stays in a certain corridor). And I did not say that lower price makes it more liquid, I just said there is no direct correlation.

Why would Ripple do any of the above? Price <> liquidity. Forget about your investment and put yourself in their shoes. Would you really care whether the price is $0.3 or $3 right now? I’d have preferred $0.3 if I were them - less publicity and more upside for potential buyers. More buyers with skin in the game and political/business influence - more future opportunities. But this is me.

I would like to talk about Ripple’s programmatic sales, specifically who could be the actors involved in these sales (either acting on Ripple’s behalf or on behalf of other actors related to Ripple). I personally don’t believe that Ripple is interested in dumping “as much XRP as they can and run”. If you’d like to discuss this subject, please use other threads. I’d like to start with a bold assumption: Ripple is not interested in controlling the selling algo - there are other entities which could do it better while Ripple is focusing on their main business. Whom did they hire to do the distribution? Partnering with an exchange would be an obvious choice and they probably did that at first. As the next step (in my opinion), Ripple themselves or their trusted exchange approached one of the big (Tier 1?) Investment banks and started a partnership. It is not that much of a stretch if you consider the state of the Investment banking industry these days. The bank would not have been able to work in this capacity officially but they could have “let part of their algo desk go”, forming a fully independent (on paper) company or a subsidiary in a distant jurisdiction. It would have been a great partnership for all 3 parties involved - Ripple gets their XRP distributed by algo professionals and significantly increases the liquidity, the exchange gets a dark pool which can be used for other activites (google “dark pool”, it is exciting) plus its commission, the bank/hedge fund receives their commission as well. It gets much more interesting if you consider things a professional algo team with almost unlimited resources (billions of XRP + full support of an exchange, especially with co-location + support from a major financial institution) can do at the unregulated market. For example - executing billion dollar trades without affecting the market. Playing with a prop position. Accumulating on behalf of their other clients. And yes, suppressing the price could be on the menu as well. Mythical “XRP whales” in this scenario are not early investors or small algo teams, it is a combination of different actors (including Ripple, yes) which have overlapping but not fully aligned goals. Even less so in the long-term perspective. I could have gathered a bunch of “facts”, proving this theory (ah, remember JP executives at Ripple’s office? Ah, who is the new CEO of Binance USA? etc etc) but this is not my intention. I am not trying to connect dots, just illustrating one of the possible scenarios using my experience in Investment banking. How likely is it? We don’t know. We simply don’t have enough pieces of the puzzle to judge. But this for sure would have been very much in line with ethics and behaviour of IB executives. Just to sum up, many are waiting for regulation (because it would attract FIs) and hate Ripple for suppressing the price. Good news: FIs might be already here and they are ready to cut the pie. Bad news: it’s them who’ll get most of the pie. Even better news: the pie is so big, there will be bread crumbs left. Even worse news: it might be years until they decide to cut the pie. And my usual advice: DYOR, don’t FOMO, be reasonable with your investment and don’t let others to cloud your judgement (shilling and FUD are equally bad). Peace.

This is a good point. I have more to add: who controls the selling algo? Who are other main actors involved? What are their incentives (both short-term and long-term)? Hm, after thinking about it, I decided to start another thread just to discuss these aspects. And to distance myself from this doom and gloom

I also have a theory/question. Have @RegalChicken and @Yodaxrp got hacked?

It’s a pity your graph does not have the time scale. It would have been easier to trace the progress because I remember a similar graph from a year ago.

@Socrates, I don’t agree with this statement (but I very much agree with the rest of your comment): The reason for critics is very simple - overall poor communication in relation to Xpring (not a surprise, PR is not the strongest side of Ripple) and contradictions in official/semi-official statements (which is disturbing because Ripple as a company is usually more than transparent and honest). Xpring’s communication is a low standard even for Ripple. Xpring acts as a standalone VC but pretends to be something more. Again, this kind of communication is not mandatory but in my opinion it damages Ripple, a company which has always been honest and transparent. BTW I have no problem with Ripple investing their own money (earned through XRP or not).