Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Gosens

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Don't think there's much correlation between stocks and crypto's. Other than that I'm completely clueless as to the direction we're going from here. Thought the tether-scandal to be super interesting and curious to see how that plays out. Bitfinexed article (although overly negative) had some great food for thought. I was already considering selling off all my XRP and that pushed me to do it. We'll see whether that was the right call or not I still think XRP will make it, but feel the overall direction still to be dictated by BTC. And feel that market still to tank further down
  2. I had to giggle a little when you call them money makers instead of market makers. Market makers will not hold big positions in XRP. They make money making markets, not by speculating on price movement in XRP. To make markets they do not need to hold big positions in XRP, they will actually avoid big positions in XRP as it's an exposure. When the market maker buys MXN for XRP, they'll hedge their positions. As a result passing on the initial flow back to the exchanges. A likely hedge would be to buy XRPUSD (hedging the XRP part), then buying USDMXN (hedging their USDMXN exposure). End result, 0 exposures for the market makers, profit made on the XRPMXN spread. Market impact in USDMXN as that was the initial transfer. As USDMXN changes, so will XRPUSD, XRPMXN accordingly. Forgot to mention, I defintely agree, you'll need market makers to make xRapid work.
  3. That's my whole point. All the statements above or not the direct result of xRapid usage. It's the result of thousand ways that liquidity sloshes around the system as you put it. That's not exactly the wording I used. In any case, do you refer to USD -> USD transfers? (did not state anything about things being zeroed off with a USD -> JPN transfer). If you did refer to a USD -> USD transfer. Why wouldn't the buy vs sell offset? Imagine on the other end, you have the market maker. What is the market maker going to do? How is he hedging his positions? ---> there's not going to be any market impact there. Bank 1 buys XRP with USD at P + x from MM, MM knows he's buying XRP from Bank 2 for P - x, for USD. Profits the spread (in this case 2*x) and he's done. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 transaction or thousands. XRPUSD is not gonna move because of the transfers. XRPUSD is gonna move because of the thousand ways it sloshes around. I dunno, maybe you feel that it is part of xRapid. Then we can agree to disagree, and this is just a big semantics discussion. You seem to know what I think, but judging from your post it's not even close. Sigh, I feel like i'm trying to convince members from the Flat Earth Society the world is round. Although, I do realize you feel the same way about me
  4. Sigh, Not sure if you're referring to my posts. If so, not sure if you read my posts, I'm just unclear in explaining or you didn't get what I was saying. but I'll reiterate my point once more. If one sends USD to another person in USD, it will not have a market impact (in the long term). if it's sending usd for another fiat e.g MXN. I explained what will happen a few posts back. Ok, let's try it another way then. Why does volume, increase xrp according to you?? all the arguments you present in the last part of your post, why would that lead to a higher price?
  5. This area would definitely not be my expertise and think they guys at Ripple on the right track onboarding as much financial institutions as possible. It's key they get a couple of good market makers. Would have no idea, if they already set that up? Potential incentive for market makers is huuuuge, given the fx issue ripple is trying to solve. xRapid needs professional, reliable market makers to get this to work as promised. My point is just that whether a trade happens through xRapid, or outside of it doesn't make a difference in respect to market impact. A lot of people I've seen posting on this subject argue that the use of xRapid, specifically due to xRapid's design, increases XRP price. This is not true. However, I do think XRP's demand will increase with mass adaption of xRapid. With everybody using xRapid, I don't think financial institituions can avoid holding some amounts of XRP. At that stage they might not even care as much.
  6. Correct. I know which parts I know and which I don't. Not knowing how the back-end of things work don't change how financial markets work. Like gravity in physics, process of supply and demand has to be satisfied and that's what impacts the market. It's definitely not my intent to disagree with every opinion you voice, or that I don't respect / think about / read what you post..... but in terms of financial markets and their microstructures I'm more than confident that I know what I'm talking about. I've been doing this (trading at a prop. trading firm / market maker) for years now and know how financial markets work. And yes, these fora are for everyone's education. I don't know much about crypto and certain technologies and that's why I'm here. To learn about that. So you can get all defensive if you want, but I challenge you to let go of pre-taught notions on how you think financial markets work,
  7. In 3. you make some assumptions that don't hold and / or not appropriate to the situation. Reasons being: First of you say the marketmaker previously bought XRP using MXN. Realize that this is not part of xRapid transfers I previously described in my post. Meaning if (and that's a really big if), the MM would have bought MXN using XRP beforehand, it's that buy order that increases demand in XRPMXN. The xRapid-send still behaves in the way I explained. If (and again, I don't think they will) market makers need XRP, they have numerous ways to get XRP there. Buying XRP using MXN seems one of the worst way to do it It also would means, they have a exposure in XRPMXN. Market makers don't like exposures. Although I don't know how it would work on the back-end, I assume they can short XRP if needed. Basically, they start with 0 positions before trading and want to end up with 0 positions after. I really don't see why. And people repeating it doesn't make it true for me. So I do hope you can brush up on your past courses, so you can provide more input. Uhm, no I don't agree with @xrpmeplease
  8. Your explanation is clear and I understand your perspective. However, it's incorrect. You can debit mikenard77 for that . You are overlooking some other factors, that change the situation considerably. Specifically, when going from fiat1 to fiat2, you can not look at only those two in a vacuum. You also need to consider the effect on fiat3, fiat4, fiat5, etc. In the sentence where you quote me, I believe I was referring to USD -> USD transfers. In any case I'll try to explain as clearly as possible both situations. Be warned; It's going to be a long-ass post. Will be copy/pasting myself from this thread mostly (I think my first post about supply /demand is an important one to understand as well): I'm making several assumptions. (Let me know if you disagree on any of these) xRapid is not some magical black box where XRP goes in and comes out with a higher price. Price of XRP is determined by supply and demand. In a simplified nutshell, xRapid connects exchanges. It connects market places. It moves flow from one place to another. As such we should look at these flows to determine impact on supply and demand. Consequently, the impact on XRP price. I want to make a distinction between sending the same fiat from person P1 to person P2 and when sending fiat F1 from P1 to F2 to P2. Just as example I'll use F1 = USD and F2 = MXN. For a minute, let's not consider XRP / xRapid yet. In that case, I hope you agree that sending someone USD does not have any market impact on USD. The actual act of transferring money does not have any market impact. Adding or removing liquidity in either demand or supply changes the market price. Transferring itself doesn't alter anything in supply/demand. Also realize what is actually involved in transferring. From the definition I have in mind, transferring is always in the same currency. If e.g. I send USD and the receiving end receives MXN, I wouldn't call this 'transferring'. In that situation there's 2 transactions taking place. 1) I buy MXN, paying in USD. 2) I transfer MXN to someone. 1) influences demand / supply and thus price. 2) does not. So to quickly recap. Sending USD from P1 to P2 -> no market impact Sending USD from P1 to MXN to P2 -> actually same as selling USD buying MXN -> market impact! USDMXN goes down. Ok, so let's include XRP and xRapid and dissect what happens. Case 1 USD from P1 to P2 Breaking this down in xRapid, we can say: P1 sells USD, buys XRP from Marketmaker M P1 transfers XRP to P2 (no market impact on XRP) P2 buys USD, sells XRP from M In practice (depending on liquidity) this proces might not go efficiently. The 2 transactions seperately 1) first sell USD for XRP, 3) second sell XRP for USD both have an effect on the demand/supply->price at the moment of transaction surely. Depending on how illiquid the market is, these two orders can have a large impact if you look at them seperately (you buy too high and sell too low). However, after the 2 have been processed we're exactly at the same situation as we were before. The two trades offset each other as the amount of XRP bought and sold is the same. So, since the buy happens first, yes you drive demand up first. Sure, this could also even trigger a higher demand by other participants. You have to realize though, a sell for exactly the same amount happens afterwards. In the same manner this cancels the initial up-move. If you want to argue that a buy leads to higher demand, but the sell doesn't do the opposite, then think one step further. Where is that demand then coming from? Bots who buy when they see other participants buying? If they only do it assymettrically, they'll be broke in no time. Case 2 USD from P1 to MXN to P2 Now it gets more interesting. So I'm sending USD, other guy's receiving MXN. Which means P1 sells USD for XRP P1 transfers XRP to P2 (no market impact on XRP) P2 sells XRP for MXN. 1) increases price XRPUSD and 3) decreases price XRPMXN. Before we continue, realize that we are actually trading USD vs MXN. We're selling USD and buying MXN. Meaning USDMXN should go down. This is in agreement with 1) and 3). Also realize that we can't only look at USD, MXN and XRP. We should also consider EURUSD, EURMXN, EURXRP, USDCHF, CHFXRP, etc, etc, etc. For the prices to make sense all currency pairs have to be in line. (Imagine what would happen if XRPUSD goes up, but XRPEUR and EURUSD would remain unchanged). When you do include all pairs you can actually see whether USD is weakening versus all other currencies or MXN is strenghtening versus the rest. So, if we notice that USD is weakening, then you'll also see that in the XRPUSD pair. XRP is strengthening vs USD, but not against MXN, EUR, CHF etc. In other words, the increasing XRP price is not due increase in demand for XRP, it's due to weakening of the USD versus all other currencies (including XRP). Similarly, it could be MXN is strengthening versus all other currencies. Above situation described is pretty black and white, but I hope it explains the situation.
  9. Even though I agree that @Mods_are_tyrants is about the biggest debbie downer compared to all the #tothemoon-fanatics, he's also right about a lot of things. Btw, I mean no offence to either @Mods_are_tyrants or the #tothemoon-fanatics. I'm glad we have them all on this forum Transactions that go through xRapid concerning XRP are neutral, because you get exactly that -> you buy and sell the same amount. To add, you need non-neutral transactions if you want a price increase Another edit: 1 transaction might never be neutral, but 2 offsetting transactions are (which is what's happening in xRapid)
  10. Volume in itself does not equal higher prices. You cannot count the full $219 million of WU as demand, as they would also sell roughly the same amount. So increase in demand is really just a small percentage (close to 0). Sure, given enough Western Unions and other FI you eventually get a big number, but a lot of people imo are misunderstanding the demand/supply effect of xRapid.
  11. How is this unchartered territory? You're not the first one who wants to use trademarked logos. @Sukrim's link is all you need
  12. Agreed that it's a matter of when not if. There's a lot of hurdles though. Current crypto exchanges are not the most reliable. I can imagine clearing / risk / compliance / etc to pose some questions. That said, I saw e.g. LMAX involved in crypto nowadays. It might also be the case the MM / broker are waiting for the interest of their clients / counterparties. That they haven't setup yet, since there's no inflow anyway.
  13. I was incorrect in saying xrapid was an exchange. And yes, to understand it, you should dissect it in all the individual steps. Still, I would say, go back to the earlier posts. I feel most is said there explaining the processes of the individual flows. Higher volumes does not equal higher prices. Higher volume indicates something's going on. Some news of sorts. News is perceived as good or bad. If it was neutral, it wouldn't trigger an increase of volume. So sure there's often a direction associated with higher volumes. Not necessarily up.
  14. Thanks for your input @jcdenton and @Lamberth! It doesn't make a difference whether xRapid is an actual exchange or passes on the flow to an exchange for my post though. Sure thing. Important step in understanding what's happening is identifying the market participants. Usually, there's 1 side who has an actual intention. E.g. FI who wants to buy XRPUSD. The other side is there to facilitate and willing to do the trade at certain premium. In this example some MM willing to sell XRPUSD to the FI. The goal of FI is to get long XRPUSD, because FI believes XRP price will increase in the future. The goal of the MM is to make money on that trade, hence the premium. Important to realize, the MM makes money because of constantly selling at a premium or buying at a discount. not because of directional speculation.* Once the OTC is done and the MM sold XRPUSD to the FI, they actually have an exposure. They're short XRPUSD. So they're going to buy back the XRPUSD they're short. Before they commit to the OTC they estimate the impact of buying that amount of XRP and include that in their OTC price. OTC trading influences the price in a similar manner as trades on an exchange, because the MM forwards the flow to exchanges. I think @Lamberth made some really good points regarding exchange aggregation. Basically, because of MM being connected to multiple exchanges, you will see their OTC volume indirectly flow into all these exchanges. And since they do this in a 'smart' way, they will get better executions than if the FI would buy the whole chunk in 1 go on 1 exchange. Note though, that the demand/supply-change is the same if you do it in 1 chunk or spread out. The end-point is the same, the way how you get there is different. *It's a bit of a simplification. There are participants for sure who do both. Trade at premium/discounts while having directional view on asset price as well. It doesn't change the overal concept explained though.
  15. I think 98.5% of people talking TA have no actual clue of what's really happening. I think in the cryptospace that percentage is around 99.4%
  • Create New...