xrpmeplease

I love the certainty behind your statement...the exact thing you hold against the folks that hold contrary opinions to yours.

Ripple's in court cause they got sued.

don't agree with your characterizations and conclusions, but otherwise a very informative post, thank you.

one could argue that every investor in Ripple would have a vested interest in seeing the price of XRP maximized seeing how much of it Ripple currently holds...i have no idea if Ripple as a public company is the best framework for that to happen, but it would surely open the XRP marketplace to new batch of motivated investors. in any event, i'd be surprised to see this happen, but interesting to think about.

a lot of assumptions around strategy, timelines and the purpose of xPring in this thread, and in this post, but the last part re "distribution centre" make sense to me...it all (XRP), or substantially more, needs to circulate ultimately, and ideally its being distributed in a controlled and strategic manner (i invested on the premise it would be)...every time there's one of these threads, the unknown is always on what terms the XRP were conveyed, which imo is a critical part in assessing whether the distribution event in question is favourable to the growth of the ecosystem, or not, as well as what the impact on price will ultimately be (long term). its one thing to traffic in hypotheticals, quite another to draw conclusions with incomplete information. coin burning their "warchest" as its been called doesn't make any sense to me. it's part of their competitive advantage. time will tell i guess. and my take on the Dharma tweets, fwiw, is that its either a question of timing ("at the moment") or there's a broader purpose at play...i'm aware those are charitable views, but i'm still in a charitable mindset with a view to my investment, i hope i'm not ultimately proven wrong...again, time will tell.

I wish I could say more...

you can mitigate the risk of being sued but you can't eliminate it entirely in an area where the law/regulations are unsettled, and even then, a motivated and adequately funded party can still bring an action in court if they are determined to, even if it ultimately never goes anywhere. spurious litigation happens. period. so i'll say it again, innovation is messy...and hindsight is 20/20. i'm sure some things could have been better planned out or executed, but that's true of any worthwhile endeavour. the scale and scope of what they want to accomplish means its a given that they'll be adjusting plans on the fly, as they say, and asking for forgiveness instead of permission on some fronts. so, its still too early to know how big of an issue the securities thing will be ultimately I think, and anyone who pretends to know for certain how it will play out is full of it, but what do I know...

avoidable how? you can't stop someone from suing you, particularly if what the area of law/regulation is unsettled...innovation is messy!

or defend themselves against spurious claims? are you proposing they not do it? innovation is messy, who knows what other challenges might pop up, doesn't mean you don't try, you just deal best you can...and one way of mitigating future risk would be to allocate resources to said lawyers and former sec employees, no?

Not great, but not out of line relatively speaking I think...it likely speaks more to the fact that they consider Canada such a small market (it is) and they probably made a business decision based on cost/benefit.

when the glass is half full, you can find nuggets of value everywhere and anywhere

i'm not a securities guy so i'm not going to argue with you, but i consult in a regulatory environment as well and the thought that comes to mind when reading through this thread is that innovation is messy and it seems like you're being unduly harsh in assessing Ripple's intentions. or maybe not. we'll see, i'm still comfortable, though far from an expert. plus its a private company, so most of what gets discussed here is speculation in any event. but your posts were interesting and had substance to them, even if i don't agree with some of your conclusions, so please don't stop posting.

agree with him or not, he's added value here so don't push him out the door...notwithstanding his tendency to represent opinion as fact, which in fairness he did redress in later posts.

you beat me to it

That's not what I said, but what I (or you ) want is not material. I'll assume they're compliant with whatever regulatory disclosure requirements they are subject to.