Jump to content

Alluvial

Member
  • Content Count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Alluvial

    Coinbase Ditches Its Index Fund

    Remember when this was the big Coinbase announcement on CNBC, when we are all thinking it was going to be XRP? Who would want to pay Coinbase 200 basis points per year to simply to hold various cryptos which the investor can simply buy on their own without paying Coinbase any additional fee for being in the index? A joke from the beginning. It was truly beyond belief. I wish I could have been in the room listening to these guys deciding the annual fee they were going to charge. ?Then recently I saw Coinbase lowered the annual fee 50%, to 100 basis points. Not surprisingly, still no one wanted it. Seems like a bad business decision by a very young company. But that is par for the course when it comes to Coinbase.
  2. Alluvial

    Ripple Discussion featuring Jim Rickards

    Jim Rickards, the gold bug, is complaining about the finite number of bitcoin or xrp. Wow. It's a great characteristic because virtually every fiat currency ever created has been inflated away. The people deserve a store of value which also serves as a currency that is not subject to the printing whims of the government bureaucrats. That was the fundamental reason behind the creation of bitcoin.
  3. Thanks for the step by step explanation. A couple of things I was unsure about. You mentioned that if the price of xrp is low, banks will use xCurrent (for that particular transaction). But isn't the issue whether there is liquidity in the trading pairs between xrp and the particular fiat and xrp and the fiat into which it is being converted, regardless of the price of xrp? Second, you mentioned that when one exchange sends xrp to the other exchange that there is a "low burn fee". My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that when xrps are sent over the xrpledger that there is no burn fee at all. Thanks for your insights and your blogs!
  4. Ah, I thought the two parts of your post were related, but I see that they are not. Yes, I agree with your point that his daily sales will have no real impact on the price (which has been the case since the agreement was put in place).
  5. I believe Jed is probably required to sell his xrp on the xrpledger as opposed to an exchange. He has been with Bitstamp from the very beginning, and when you are raking in that much cash per day he probably doesn't care, and that is why he probably dumps the whole amount as soon as the daily amount is given to him (all bots I'm sure). And he is getting the market value now as there are buyers there everyday waiting for his daily sell.
  6. For those who are interested, Jed sells his xrp (the daily amount that he is allotted per the agreement he entered into with Ripple) on Bitstamp for USD, and he does it everyday at 4:00 pm EST. You can see it here. I don't follow the daily sells, but if you go to the link below you can see it. He has been doing this virtually everyday since the agreement was entered into a few years ago. I think he does a market sell order, and people know he is selling there, and so they are there to pick up the xrp, and sometimes at a discount (the discount was pretty big for a while, and I thought of putting in some below market bids on Bitstamp but eventually other people saw the discount and now it no longer exists). Generally, the amount he is allotted changes each week (per the agreement) based on the volume on the xrp ledger from the week before. His daily sell amount is higher than it was the last time I checked (it's around 600k per day, and last time I checked, around 6 months ago, it was around 100-200k). https://xrpcharts.ripple.com/#/markets/XRP/USD:rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B?interval=30m&range=1d&type=line
  7. Yeah, some of these guys researched xrp in the early days - Novogratz, Michael Krieger, etc - and they liked the Ripple model, but thought that there was no value in xrp. And when a person comes to a conclusion about something, it is almost impossible for them to change their minds, even as the circumstances change. The world is in need of a global digital currency that can be transferred quickly, easily and at little to no cost. Bitcoin simply doesn't do that. There isn't a digital asset IMO that does that like xrp, nothing is even close. That coupled with the rails Ripple has created and the partnerships, xrp is a huge no-brainer, but these guys don't want to change their minds because no one wants to think that their analysis was wrong.
  8. Alluvial

    Coinbase are such clowns

    Oh, I am sure they will. At one point, I believe Ripple was going to incentivize Coinbase to list xrp by offering them a lot of xrp. Coinbase refused. Now, I am hoping that Ripple offers nothing, either list or don't. Coinbase will list xrp as its dominance is decreasing by the day.
  9. Alluvial

    Coinbase are such clowns

    I hope Ripple does not offer them even a single xrp to list. We don't need Coinbase, which has never really wanted xrp and Ripple to succeed because Larsen and Armstrong had an early dispute which Armstrong tries to hold over Ripple's head, and because Coinbase thought it could to be the intermediary through which payments in bitcoin are made. Coinbase doesn't want payments being made on the XRP ledger or ILP. Coinbase will lose, and will eventually become just be another exchange.
  10. Alluvial

    $1B MARKET VOLUME FOR LAST 24 HRS

    Never heard of her before, but I like her insights.
  11. Alluvial

    $1B MARKET VOLUME FOR LAST 24 HRS

    After last year's SWELL, which was really hyped up and ended with a whimper, with basically no announcements, etc., I think that Ripple learned its lesson and is planning to announce something big, or even a lot of big things. Also, it could, of course, be imminent news from the SEC issuing an opinion that XRP is not a security. One thing I am glad about, is that no one is saying it has something to do with C**base, a foul word which I will not type here. F*ck C**base and its BS reasons for not adding XRP - we don't need you!!
  12. Even though I prefer Hodor's writing style (succinct, organized, respectful, informative), it is always interesting and enjoyable to read Galgitron's freewheeling, stream of consciousness style. I completely agree with Galgitron that bitcoin shouldn't be considered valuable just because it may serve as a store of value. I do, however, think that XRP should be considered as a store of value, and here's why. The world is ready for, and many people want, a digital asset/currency that serves as store of value, which cannot be printed or inflated away like fiat currencies can, and which is not controlled by any government. This digital asset, unlike tulips, etc., should be ubiquitous, easily divisible, and transferable in an easy, real-time and inexpensive way. The promise of bitcoin was that it would be able to do all of these things, and that is why I initially was a huge believer in bitcoin. But as reality sunk in (very slow transfer times, very expensive transfer costs, miner issues, etc.), bitcoin has shown that it simply cannot meet its promise. So what can? Clearly, XRP. XRP has all the features of bitcoin, but it is transferable in seconds and at virtually no cost. XRP fulfills bitcoin's promise, but almost no one ever refers to XRP as a "store of value." I have not heard any Ripple employee tout XRP as a store of value. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Old timers may recall the former Ripple employee Vinnie. If I recall correctly, Vinnie was a big believer in XRP serving as a store of value, and because of the very important reason that XRP needs to be held by investors in much the same way that one holds a fiat currency, gold or a security. It can't just serve as a bridge currency where people move in and out of it in seconds. And it shouldn't only be held for speculation purposes. One could make the argument that XRP should be held as a means of diversifying, but even then it must be considered to have value in and of itself, not just as a token that has utility IMO. I would be interested to hear why Brad owns bitcoin. The only reason must be its status as a store of value. Instead of repeatedly saying that he owns bitcoin, I would love it if he said he sold all of his bitcoin because XRP serves as a much better store of value because XRP can serve as the global digital currency which has all the good attributes of bitcoin, but also has the necessary utility, transfer times and cost aspects which bitcoin doesn't have. This change in view is what we need IMO to finally cause XRP to decouple from bitcoin.
  13. Alluvial

    Do you know what you shouldn't?

    Your comment is unbelievably rude, and your conclusions are apparently based on almost no research at all. Don't be too sure of yourself and your own intelligence. I gave a number of facts which question the moon landings, and you did not respond to any of them. Instead, you made derogatory comments thinking you know all the answers, telling me to stop saying dumb ****, and then you simply threw out a BS comment on lasers, which doesn't substantiate anything except for those who are looking for a quick confirmation of their already-held beliefs. Your tone and response remind me exactly of people who hate Ripple and XRP: they've already come to a conclusion, and anyone saying anything otherwise, or trying to explain the merits of XRP, is trolling and is immediately rejected and told to stop saying dumb ****. Just like you, they don't want to hear or address facts because they've already figured it all out! Now you know exactly how the anti-Ripple and anti-XRP crowd thinks.
  14. Alluvial

    Do you know what you shouldn't?

    Thanks, but this really doesn't answer the question. Yes, the farther away the object is, the more it appears to be descending to the horizon. My question is why is that when you see the sun set over the sea, you only see half of the sun? In other words, you don't see the full sun slowly disappearing into the horizon. And, more importantly, why does the sun not appear in full when it is setting when viewed through binoculars or a telescope? Under your explanation the full sun would appear, but really the half sun continues to appear, but just closer.
  15. Alluvial

    Do you know what you shouldn't?

    I agree with you on the Shining. There is a very interesting documentary on the Shining and how it relates to the moon landing being filmed by Kubrick, including front screen projection explanation and how you see it in moon photos of the landings. Very compelling. I think Kubrick demanded as part of his "Eyes Wide Shut" contract that the movie must open on July 16, 1999, the exact date (30 years earlier) that Apollo 11 was launched. Also, it just seems somewhat obvious to me that we never went to the moon. We supposedly went 6 times in a span of 3 plus years, and on 1960s technology. And then neither the US nor any other country has decided to go back even though we've had massive technological advances over the past 50 years. There's a NASA guy who literally said they would like to go back but they "lost" the technology to do so. Really? And you also lost all the telemetry data and all the reels of the original footage of the moon landings. Then you have the Van Allen radiation belts, and the supposed moon rock given to Amsterdam that ended up being petrified wood when they tested it years later. The list goes on. But who knows, I try to be objective about the facts and keep an open mind. I could be wrong, but it just seems very fishy to me. On the flat earth, I just don't see it. It seems like there is no explanation as to why the sun sets as it does in that if one were to view the sun as it sets over the sea through binoculars or a telescope one would think that the entire sun would reappear if it's truly just farther off in the distance. But my understanding is that it doesn't - that you just see a half sun setting just in a bigger size. Do you have an explanation for this?
×