Jump to content

wogojump

Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wogojump

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Agree with zerpdigger that this is a non sense argument. In order for XRP to ultimately be successfully, majority of stakeholders need to have trust in Ripple in regards to their actions that impact XRP. Majority of stakeholders do not need trust in how zerpdigger is buying and selling XRP, in order for XRP to be successful in the future.
  2. One thing that has been consistent with Ripple in the last few years, is them using money from XRP sales to fund failing businesses with bad business models. We will be seeing more of these cases pop up in the next few years. A bad business model is bad, regardless of receiving initial funding from XRP sales. The XRP funding just allows the bad business models to go on longer, until they eventually run out of the initial investment findings. We already have instances like Dharma where they received funding, but are not even working on XRP projects. Coil will be another example of a bad business model, except they received 10X amount of funding, so it will be years out until the community acknowledges the current business model is a failure or their business model is adjusted. We will most likely see MoneyGram continue to decline and eventually fail.
  3. I am not sure what you are referring to when "do you think this just happens over night?". Building user base, increase revenues, etc.? Advertising models like Google are estimated to make $6 a month per user: https://www.marketingcharts.com/advertising-trends-77000. This is just one internet resource. How will Coil scale to provide enough revenue to offset advertising losses for all internet content creators? Google is obviously taking a chunk of the $6 per user revenue. But, consumers will have to pay at least a few dollars for each internet site to offset not relying on advertising. In your example, TV heavily relies on both subscription/monthly fee and advertising models. Which I agree Coil can be successful with a hybrid approach. I argue they will not be successful with a business model of being an alternate to advertising. I do agree with the gaming sector as a use case. We have already seen a lot of success with mobile games and microtransactions (even though some hate this). If done correctly, I believe Coil can be huge in the gaming sector.
  4. I am not positive what majority you are referring to? Are you debating 2+ billion internet users will be paying $30+ a month for Coil so they can use the internet with out advertisements? I am debating there will be a small percentage of internet users that will justify this amount of money to use the internet with out advertising. I would agree there is a small market for pay as you go solution. But, this is a minority. Majority of the content creators and internet users will utilize the business model that provides greatest revenues at least costs to consumers.
  5. How will the net result be paying less for better content? Talented content/writers are going to gravitate towards using business models that generate the most revenue for them. Other threads have already compared the revenue generated from $5 Coil subscription models vs advertising. Advertising is brining in significantly more money for content creators. Top content creators on sites like Twitch and YouTube are brining in millions of dollars a year from advertising. Coil $5 subscription so far as shown to not be able to get any where close to revenue from advertising. Talented writers and content creators are going to stick with using business models like advertising, as long as it generates more revenue for them.
  6. This business model is looking dumber as we move forward. Looks like they are using $100 million (primary raised from selling XRP to retail investors) to fund these initiatives over next ~ 5 years. So what happens when this $100 million dries up, how are they gong to legitimately get a business model that will support content creators to use Coil, rather than advertising alternatives like Google? In 5 years, how is a web monetization model going to compete with advertising models that currently generate over 5X the revenue? Majority of internet users are not going to be paying 5x+ out of their pockets to make up for no advertising. Mozilla is a dying web browser. One of the many broken business models and businesses Ripple has invested in lately: https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/. Mozilla is getting destroyed by Google Chrome. Which is ironic that Google Chrome recently dominated the market, while organizations like Coil and Mozilla are claiming the current advertising model is broken and not what consumers want. I am pretty sure Google's revenue and customer base in the last few years proves this wrong. Mozilla is trying to push an alternative to add based content. From my understanding ~95% of Mozilla's revenue comes from license agreements from Google (formally from Yahoo). Which Google and Yahoo are raising funds for Mozilla, based on advertising revenue they generate for having Mozilla use their search engines by default. So Mozilla is trying to say the current model is broken, that generates ~95% of their revenue? Even if they are right, then they are going in direct completion with Google. Good luck with partnering with them in the future. For the sake of XRP, hopefully I am proved wrong in the future.
  7. Asking Ripple if they control the price to some degree is too vague and has too many variables, to get a clear response. Ripple does not have full control over the price, if they had full control they would simply increase the price. Becoming the wealthiest individuals and organization in the world without any effort. Ripple does currently have control to impact and potentially manipulate the price of XRP. This is clearly evident based on factors like: Laws of supply and demand- Ripple has half of the supply of XRP. Their decisions on when and how to sell does impact XRP prices. Ripple has taken many strategies in the past to control the impacts of price of XRP when being sold on the market- Examples like Jed's sales, escrow, adjustment of XRP sales in Q2 2019, etc. Ripple is actively initiating many strategies to improve the utility and value of XRP (to increase XRP trading price in the future). Hopefully Ripple does not intentionally manipulate the price of XRP in the future (at least not to a lower trading value). Their actions in the past and future will continue to impact and have correlations to the trading price of XRP. I also agree, Brad's comment on whale's controlling price of bitcoin was not a good choice for making his point. It is well known Bitcoin whale's actions impact and manipulate the market.
  8. We would need to further define what exactly is "decentralized". Even after defining, being decentralized will most likely not be a black and white concept. Rather there will be some areas that are more "decentralized" as compared to other areas. Technically, XRP has a infrastructure setup to support decentralized growth. There are other non technical factors that impact if XRP is truly decentralized, when considering the broader definition of decentralization. When looking at current state with Ripple and XRP, I would say there is still a lot more work to be done before being very decentralized. Ripple has a large percentage of XRP and will continue to in the next few years. The success in the next few years are going to be heavily correlated with Ripple's decisions of selling XRP and where to invest these funds into projects. The next few years for determining XRP success, will primarily be based on Ripple's decisions and not other stakeholders. Most other stakeholders like institutions and retail investor will have very little direct control over these success factors in the next few years. Based on this I would say XRP has at least a few more years, before XRP is truly more decentralized, as compared to being more centralized.
  9. Stefan is so contemplative because he is still learning how things work in the industries (payments, advertising, etc,). He is going to run into a lot of roadblocks and realizations over the next few years. His original hypothesis on why payments are expensive and suck was arrogant. As well as borderline stupid to have this hypothesis with out first having a basic understanding on why the middleman exists. His whole business model states Coil being an alternate to advertisements and subscriptions. Then he contradicts both of these alternatives. He talks about great opportunities for advertisers to leverage web monetization. As well as Coil currently using $5 coil subscription model. The paragraph on the browser and Coil intelligently automatically deciding how to spend the $1 of the user's money to bypass the paywall, is nonsense. Either he is a genius and I can't comprehend this logic or this doesn't make any practical sense. Based on the above bullet points, I am leading towards this being nonsense. He clearly doesn't know how and why the advertising industry exists. He is going to run into tough lessons learned, just like he did in the payments industry.
  10. You will need to provide additional evidence and clarity for this to be on topic. I am not sure how your Mom's example relates to the topic. Also, you would need to provide additional evidence leading to why Ripple and Dharma have an open NDA on XRP development. Brad mentioned the Dharma example on his tweet, on his own doing. Dharma also went out of their way to reply they are not actively working on XRP. Are you trying to come to a conclusion that Brad's and Dharma's tweet are just a conspiracy and they are really working on something else behind a closed NDA? This sounds insane, so hopefully it is not the case.
  11. Based on reading Dharma's website and their twitter reply, it seems like that is the most likely case. If this ends up being true, then this would make Brad's comment false and misleading when referring to Dharma:
  12. If you are referring to Automobile industry, when you mention "Car Industry" in this scenario, then yes that would be misleading. This seems like another scenario where posters are making up new terminologies for terms, that are not formally accepted (example: when people say XRP owners are not investors). See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry. Noting this exclusion, then clearly creating roads and traffic management are not included in the automobile industry. Now see road and highway construction industry: https://teamcoact.com/learning-center/construction-industry-trends/. Creating cars vs. construction for roads and highway are two very different things, formally broken down into different industries. So this would be a great example of being misleading. The same can be applied to XRP. XRP is a cryptocurrency utilizing blockchain concepts. Since XRP has as trading market value, it can literally be exchanged for fiat for anything else of value. If XRP investors do not follow the goals communicated from Ripple on Xpring like "Every entrepreneur will use the digital asset XRP and the XRP Ledger", rather they just sell XRP for funding to work on non XRP/XRP Ledger initiatives, then this is misleading. Now what confuses me more in this example, on Dharma's website this is mentioned in the What is Dharma Section (https://www.dharma.io/faq): Are they actually working on this functionality? Will this include integration with XRP? Another section says this for their upcoming v2. So is the funding provided by Xpring actually being used to help integration with XRP? Sounds like other coins like USDC, DAI, and Bitcoin are in the development plans, but no evidence of XRP. Clearly between Ripple and Dharma, one of the two parties is not aware of the initiatives being worked on that relate to XRP.
  13. Based on the information gathered so far, this is not looking good for Ripple. People have been voicing their concerns about XRP being sold to proactively help the community, accuracy of information from Ripple, and upcoming lawsuits. Then Brad reacts by posting an emotional FUD bashing twitter post without proper fact checking in attempt to address these concerns. Which Brad's comment and Xpring's business goal ends up having conflicting information with Dharma's twitter reply with them not actively working on XRP related features. This is all occurring while there is literally an open in progress class action lawsuit against Ripple based on concerns like noted above: https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/716bee37-e45e-41d2-a4e1-2d966015a277.pdf. This lawsuit is directly referencing to past twitter posts like the above example that are misleading or false. Which the lawsuit has been updating their case as new examples come out, including the last amended details being on 8/5/19. Totaling ~40 examples so far of twitter posts being referenced. There are a lot of loyal fans that enjoy seeing Brad post on twitter. Everyone is prone to making mistakes at times. But hopefully for the sake of Ripple and XRP community, Ripple's board of directors step in to make a correction action to prevent problems like this from happening in the future.
  14. This is a false statement that I often see people posting. See the definition of investor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor. If a XRP owner purchased XRP with expectations of future financial return, by definition they are investors. People may be mixing up investor vs. shareholder terminology. Owners of XRP are not shareholders of Ripple, unless they own Ripple stocks.
  15. I am hoping this type of strategy is applied to the American market as well (directly by Ripple and/or through Ripple's partners). I am much more impressed and confident in SBI's actions lately as compared to Ripple's. SBI is proactively building real trust with all of their stakeholders, while Brad is resorting to tactics with bashing concerned stakeholders via twitter posts, further stirring up arguments between loyal followers and concerned stakeholders:
×
×
  • Create New...