Jump to content

2ndtimearound

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    2,596
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

2ndtimearound last won the day on January 6 2019

2ndtimearound had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About 2ndtimearound

  • Rank
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I get your point, but I kind of think the number of tokens is rather arbitrary at this point (as an asset) given the volatility in price. It would surely be better if XRP traded at 50 cents and they had 50Bn total circulation than if the price was 25 cents and 100Bn circulation. The smaller circulation / higher price gives more liquidity on exchanges AND there's none of the sell pressure on the price that 50Bn locked-away would theoretically bring over the years. The latter 25 cent / 100Bn total circulation doesn't give any advantage to Ripple - there's no telling how well XRP will sell over the years AND more crucially at what price? If the price collapsed to 5 cents, then the escrowed XRP starts to look a lot less valuable compared to the IPO that can raise multiples of the potential value of the escrowed XRP in a matter of days. Just speculation...I think you're more likely to be right than I am, but I still think it's possible they could do it.
  2. Just my speculative guess at a possible future here:- Ripple decide to do an IPO and it's successful - they raise $5Bn+, which is way in excess of all of the $1Bn or so they made selling XRP over the years Ripple announce they will permanently cease all sales of XRP except programmatic sales (to exchanges) each month - anything not sold is burned. Why do this? A number of reasons: 1) to hopefully concentrate value in XRP's active circulation 2) it's a commitment to share holders that Ripple are about adding value through innovation, not merely selling an asset. 3) it puts to bed any idea that XRP is a security 4) Ripple would surely rather have a higher value, lower total circulation XRP than a lower value, higher total circulation XRP. The former provides more liquidity on exchanges, the latter is merely "potential" value escrowed away doing nothing useful. After 50 months or so, all XRP will be on exchanges or in private wallets and zero in escrow...value has been rising steadily in that time, as has liquidity, thus allowing Ripple to scale up ODL, which pleases share holders. A solid ecosystem has been built over 50 months to ensure liquidity is there. over time, the xCurrent feature-set becomes indistinguishable from Swift GPI - so the clear, distinct unique selling point that shareholders care about is ODL, as do Ripple themselves. Without ODL, Ripplenet offers similar speed and cost savings as Swift GPI. Over time, banks start to use ODL as liquidity increases and they seek out extra cost and time savings that Swift GPI can't give them. Just speculation people...hopefully I didn't trigger anyone here!
  3. The IPO could raise $5Bn+ in cash whereas XRP sales to date have raised just over $1Bn. I think that share holders would be very mindful that XRP isn't simply flushed away and seen as irrelevant...it's the only thing that distinguishes Ripple in a big way from Swift's GPI. Swift GPI gives banks the benefits that xCurrent does (if it's still called that), asides from bidirectional messaging - but they get the faster times and lower costs - the two key benefits. If Ripple discard XRP and let it wither on the vine, they're killing their unique selling point. I think this extra IPO cash could really boost XRP actually. It means they don't need the Escrowed XRP to generate income. They could even promise to burn a billion XRP each month (when released from Escrow) rather than sell it - to concentrate the value of the circulating supply. I mean, why not do that if you IPO...it's a big commitment in saying that XRP is not a cash cow for Ripple, but a tool, a currency. It would put to bed any notion that XRP is a security, that's for sure. If I am not clear enough already, I think the IPO would be a very very good thing for XRP holders.
  4. Don't worry, the coronavirus will have killed us all by this time next month
  5. Well I mean...if that were to happen, we've all bought a winning ticket (conservative 10x for most people there depending on DCA).
  6. Yes it's unfortunate but it would account for XRP's price being suppressed (constant selling). I still believe strongly that XRP's fundamentals are good - ODL is increasing in volume (forget about its lack of impact on price and on perception from future value investors).
  7. Both XRP and ETH have suffered from consistent selling, that much is true. Actually ETH's price is suffering more when compared to the 3 month period prior to the last bull run where ETH was around $275 and XRP anywhere between 18c to 24c. ICOs sold off their ETH to pay bills, and XRP's chickens have come home to roost with their giveaways. I still stand by my point though that either the cryptospace is basically withering on the vine, OR there will be another bull run, and XRP will be a part of it - especially given that it is actually being used in business. I know it sounds almost parochial and archaic in this asset class, but there is such a thing as value investors, and when they are alerted by bullish signals in this space, they will seek out fundamentals. XRP is strong on that front, whereas 95% of cryptos are just whitepaper fantasies, of which there is a very very large graveyard of past tokens that have died completely. XRP has a history and exponentially growing utility volume ($5M a day at the moment).
  8. The problem when someone is constantly negative about a particular thing is that it's almost certainly bad faith / an ulterior motive that's driving them. They never offer a disclaimer or announce their true intention - usually because the intention itself is based on feelings, and it would be ridiculed if they just came out and said something like "I used to hold XRP, now I don't, so my feelings have switched from wanting XRP to go up....to wanting it to go down, and I enjoy discussing its negative aspects on these forums". That's just an example reason, by the way (for anyone triggered ). Conversely, someone always positive about an asset is almost exclusively an investor in that asset. I would class them as "good faith" because their intentions are clear. Yes, their opinions are largely based on feelings too. Quite often they are ridiculed when they are "wrong" (when their asset is losing value). In a sense, they're held to account because of their clear intentions. Sure, many of them can overlook the negative aspects of the asset they're invested in, but you have a more informed view of their opinion than the bad faith snipers - since their intentions are clear (to talk up an asset they're invested in). The negative talkers always come out in a bear market - because they have easy targets to ridicule, and also because likely they were in that asset previously, now they're not. Otherwise, I don't get it - why talk negatively about a particular asset over and over, dedicating hours of your time to it - why that asset and not the 2000 others you could equally criticise (if the argument is they have no feelings either way on XRP)? It's just cover - everyone's opinion is based on a positive or negative feeling about the subject matter.
  9. XRP's price has largely tracked the crypto bear market in the last 2 years. Do you think that in the next bull run, XRP will be left out of it....and stagnate at 20 cents and even lower while the cryptospace goes past $1trillion....OR do you think there will not even be another bull run (i.e. the market is essentially dead)? Really, only these two scenarios are on offer to the XRP permabear.
  10. Isn't it funny that only XRP is held to the standard that utility volume must affect price or XRP doesn't "deserve" to go up in value? What about BTC's utility volume? Say what in the what now? What about ETH's utility volume? Cryptokittys you mean? More like ICOs dumping ETH to pay bills. I can think of VET as a decent crypto that is actually fusking USED. Other cryptos? Really?! It's all whitepaper dreamz. Why aren't token holders of other cryptos talking about utility volume like XRP holders are? Because utility volume doesn't exist for those cryptos.
  11. Can I just remind people here that XRP is the most used-in-business crypto out there? Here you go: https://utility-scan.com/#/dashboard Did we forget that? You think that counts for ZERO in a speculative bull run? It's converting $5M of fiat a day from one currency to another. No other crypto is doing that. Forget about utility volume affecting price. Think about speculation when the world's attention once again returns to the cryptospace in the next bull run. The price has dragged people so down they forget the basics here.
  12. Meh...the bitcoin halving + speculation surrounding the cryptospace as a whole has more influence on XRP's price than fundamentals - that's how it is.
  13. Absolutely. I honestly have no idea where XRP goes next in terms of price - at least the market has beaten me down to such a humble perspective. Gaining humility from investing in crypto is a gift I was not expecting, so I pay gratitude for my beating! I am the grateful victim here that my holdings are down and I expect nothing from them.
  14. Rent is always correlated to house prices. The renter is paying the landlord's mortgage and costs.
  15. According to that chart, houses are actually MORE affordable today in the USA than in recent decades (biggest gap between earnings outpacing house price increases). I call bovine fecal matter on that one. For one, the subprime meltdown in 2008 showed us that people were stretched to the limit. Since then, the fed slashed interest rates to near zero. That's the ONLY thing making housing "affordable". You might argue "well then, just keep interest rates low". That's not possible if you want a healthy economy that follows a market cycle. That cycle usually includes a recession. A recession requires a 4% to 5% slashing of the fed funds rate to stimulate the economy. The fed does not have that luxury. Here's my second point: you can't make debt cheap and not expect house prices to inflate beyond wages. It's a one way ratchet though - you lock people into mortgages they can afford at a low rate, but they will default at a SLIGHTLY higher rate (see 2008, except 2008 had normal lending rates, we don't even have that today!). Also, not sure why you've changed your mind from one chart to another. First you agreed with the chart I showed, now you contradict yourself and agree with the chart above. I've studied housing markets for around 10 years and it's not pretty as to what is going on. It's basically a massive social engineering experiment where younger generations are less likely to have children (can't afford them, don't own a home). If you want to cheerlead the housing market and say "there's nothing much to see here", then feel free to plough that lonely furrow. I don't see the point in that really. The thing you can't answer is "what if the Fed tries to normalise interest rates?" (i.e. 4% to 5% fed funds rate). We all know they can't do that. House prices need to CRASH if we are to get normalised interest rates again.
×
×
  • Create New...