Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

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

zerpian's Achievements

  1. I noticed Jed's selling wallet is almost depleted and hasn't got replenished for several days now. Has this happened before too or just a coincidence? https://jed.tequ.dev https://bithomp.com/explorer/rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv
  2. Instead of burning the xrp, I think it should be used for what is intended for and that's to incentivize the network. How I see this to be done: - Create a DAO to where the freed funds from escrow are transferred, - The DAO distributes xrp automatically to (d)app developers on objective metrics such as creation of wallets, tvl,..., any other metric but verifiable on the ledger; - DAO's rules are open to discussion but the main purpose cannot be changed (incentivizing the network) only the how. This will have a lot of advantages where Ripple failed, such as transparency, growing the ecosystem bit by bit instead of chasing dreams, attracting developers, decentralization, distribution, ...
  3. + might also be the reason why Ripple refused to settle, instead choose 'to fight' .
  4. @Pablo thanks for your insights. I share your thoughts, as written is several posts. So, we can agree on the fact that the problematic part are the pragmatic dumps (as I read somewhere on this forum). Ripple was aware of this situation at least in 2018, where Gensler e.g. made the following statement: 'The reason I say that is to write a rule, get public comments, to get feedback, finalize that rule, give a period of time for implementation and maybe court challenge is two years at a minimum and possibly three to five years when you really see how things go. I think 2018 and I’ll be speaking more about exchanges later this week, but 2018’s a period of time to try to bring compliance into this sort of 1000 plus tokens. What ripple and ether, while I think there’s a strong case particularly for ripple or XRP given the centrality and the common enterprise around Ripple Labs, and that they’re selling it every month and so forth. That’s really a discussion between them and the SEC and ultimately the way I would think is if the SEC declares that there’re securities that might end up in court, and so it won’t be the SEC it maybe not even a federal district court but an appellate court, that will decide or the Supremes.' But let me say this, if they decide that they’re not securities, I think that too probably ends up in court and the reason is is because somebody else will say, ‘well why are they getting out of regulation and I’m not.’ So, law is best when applied consistently and we went through the duck test and the Howey Test – a little humorous – but it’s also because for whichever way authorities go they have to have an eye on consistency as well. So, I think nine months at the least, maybe two to five years at the longest.' I regret not having read this stuff before. Ethereum intelligently transformed its structure with selling 70K ETH around 2017-2018. Ripple might have considered too but how can you sell 55B. If this uncertainty is going to take 3-5 years, we can all guess how it probably will end...
  5. Exactly this. It's time (may be already too late) for Ripple to be proactive instead of reactive. Ripple is patching its business model instead of upgrading. The escrow is an example of saving the day and a reactive answer on the problem. None knows what it is intended for except to give the perception, they won't dump while there are still billions in free float and still 1 billion coming free every month. The most hilarious part is the distribution graph published back then. This sec case alone is causing the energy to be channeled to wrong places.
  6. No idea what they are doing but at a certain moment, I believe, there was a problem with their consensus mechanim which led to a halt of the network.
  7. This is like 2017 all over again. Back then bch and iota flipped xrp, except the sec case but we had attacks from other communities for being too centralised. The attacker has changed, times have changed and here we are..again.
  8. But aren't the Kin and Telegram cases not different than Ripple's case in the sense they wanted to raise money for a yet to be developed product and also been launched after the DAO-report? That's why Ripple says in its defence: 'Unlike prior ICO enforcement actions, this case will be the first time that the SEC has to refute years of trading data that fundamentally undermines its theory' Also remarkable in Ripple's defence is: 'As a threshold matter, it would be unprecedented to bring a case against Ripple based on XRP sales that took place before the July 2017 DAO Report, especially in a case where the SEC is not alleging fraudulent conduct.' I still think that Ripple's ongoing sales are placing xrp, especially after the DAO report (which is kind of clarity), under a possible perception of a security. So, why is ETH then seen differently? Because, my humble opinion, there is a non-profit foundation overlooking the ETH spend and the community is somehow involved in the decisions. The structure is more accessible. For comparison Coil got - what was it - 1 B xrp, Uniswap around 100k or something.
  9. Most probably the Congress will vote on a framework and thus not specifically on XRP itself. This framework will have its grey zones in which XRP is highly likely to fall in. Secondly, the architect of this framework is probably going to be Gensler who already, I believe in 2017/2018, identified XRP as security (because of the never ending sales?) This is how I see it. Your comments are much appreciated and from other experts in this matter.
  10. I hope they have their figures correct because there were, if I recall correctly, issues with the reported volume on some exchanges.
  11. A person deeming himself indestructible and powerful, may or may not lose her ability to analyse the situation. This might be the case whenever that situation is not in accordance with her reality. Unlike many think and in hindsight, the SEC complaint is the best thing that could have happened to Ripple. Indeed SEC's goal is to protect the investors. After having gone through some statements, I think the point SEC is trying to make is: Ripple, you had plenty of time to build your network. We can understand you needed money to kickstart your network. It's been 8/7 years. We cannot allow you to keep selling xrp, especially to retail. What has been done, is been done but this (the selling) needs to stop. Let's wait for Ripple's arguments in court but sofar these arguments have not been very persuasive (to me). On the contrary, threats like we're going to leave US, are not very productive or trying to put SEC in bad light. There is continuity in government affairs. Even tough Jay is leaving office, it seems that Ripple has been warned for years and his successor will probably continue on the same path. Finally, one of Ripple's goal was to safeguard xrp's value and keep the markets healthy and orderly. Pointing to SEC as a reason for the price crash is not fair, specially not if that is your own objective. I'm not a lawyer. This is purely my own interpretation of the situation. Edit: on the question whether xrp is a security? I think SEC proposed to stop selling xrp, pay a reasonable fine and continue the core business as a software company built around xrpl.
  12. With all respect, what's the point of discussing the proposal? Will this lead to something concrete?
  13. I just wonder why Ripple or should we say Chris & Brad didn't choose to settle. The legal process will last probably for years and markets do not like uncertainties. Ripple has been ignoring for years the community aspect of the crypto markets. I do not think they will change course and keep doing whatever they see best fit.
  14. Here's tenitoshi explaining what this index is all about:
  • 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.