Jump to content

Frisia

Member
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frisia

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 'If you sleep with dogs you get up with flees'. Never heard of it but it explains very well the kind of people that we're dealing with...
  2. Exactly, he seems to give an interpretation that enforces the personal allegations towards Brad & Chris while the SEC seems to loosen the grip on Ripple because either the evidence against the company is just to weak or in an attempt to save Ripple as a US company (or both). I really like the clear and easily understandable views provided by Hogan, at least for a non legal (as I am).
  3. Seems an explanation of an average xrpchat user providing it's opinion and not by an ex SEC chair and lawyer. More a poor article rather than a wrong article.
  4. Sorry to hear about your loss: it happened to me as well. I did a few trades switching between assets most with mixed results, but in my experience as soon as you try to cover your losses things go terribly wrong as very described by @Julian_Williams. These days I do some trading with small amounts on Binance trying so sell after a run (let's say 10%) and reinvesting in crypto's that have lost recently. I do make some money (hundreds of $) but my real portfolio is more stable. During the initial "SEC crisis" I switched a part of my XRP to ETH to de-risk the portfolio but this wasn't
  5. Agree, only this phrase could become far more important than we can imagine now. The focus on climate becomes increasingly dominant in business decisions...
  6. Incredibile, but the price for the most threatening remark is that this event is "further drying up the token's liquidity"... 🤣
  7. This is the key point. It is time driven programmed sales and, moreover, Jed cannot sell based on inside information. Now there is no proof that BG and CL sold their tokens leveraging on inside information, but the suspect is always there unless it is done in a transparent way or, even better, time triggered as part of their distribution strategy.
  8. In fact, that's the reason I think the price is artificially high and not representative for when the open market will be operating. On the other hand the initial number of circulating coins will be 15% of the total future supply, so obviously the demand will be based on the available tokens. In any case, I would be surprised if the initial price would exceed a few cents (less than 0.10) but that's pure speculation and based on nothing. Other theories with better forecasts are welcome of course.
  9. You're absolutely right but I was referring to the moment that the market opens and all exchanges operate on the same market with arbitration etc. and of course converting the IOU FLR to FLR. Only then we will know what the real price will be. I think this was the question of the topic opener...
  10. In my view exchanges overreacted because the public trading is not the issue. However, the whole case is very tricky with many points of view. The fact that even loyal partners like Bitmex stopped trading makes me think that the risks could be more extended than we think... Moreover, you know better than I do, that US trials are very unpredictable. Whether this is a deliberate ambiguity I honestly don't know. Sure is that it's not a straight forward case...
  11. Yes, exactly. So in other words, the total amount of FLR IOU is fixed while the number of customers is not. Therefore, answering the question of the topic opener, assuming that some new customers are interested in buying FLR IOU while it's still cheap, the demand for the token could be artificially high and - in my view - not entirely representative for when the market will be open. I cannot imagine pump & dump schemes arranged within the boundaries of one exchange...
  12. There are very good posts over here that explain extremely well, much better than I can explain, that the issue is not the technical status of the token itself but the fact that the token was "sold as an investment contract" which makes it liable as an unregistered security. So where I agree with you that it's not a security, in fact the allegations by the SEC do not include this classification, the real issue is the previous and on going sales of tokens. So your post doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion I'm afraid.
  13. Isn't the trading on Bitrue limited to the internal market of Bitrue itself? There is not open network and therefore market yet, so all trading is happening within the Bitrue "walls" with an internal market which is limited by the total tokens held by the Bitrue customers. In the meantime obviously new customers could open accounts with Bitrue and buy FLR iou tokens. Wether this market is representative for a future open market I don't think so because of the reason above (new customers buying FLR) so the price seems artificially high to me (but I could be totally wrong 🤣). So yes 1.
  14. This is your second post over here. I would advise to document yourself and do some research before making statements that "sound as fud". This is absolute nonsense. The use of XRP by institutions has nothing to do with the price, they will not hold or buy XRP. You're completely of track
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.