Jump to content

ICookinBrine

Member
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ICookinBrine

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think proponents of the position that XRP is not a security could argue that you would hold it to cut down your transaction costs by not having to convert twice (fiat>xrp>different fiat). Additionally, as coincenter emphasized in its analysis today, this is an *objective* inquiry (i.e., "a reasonable purchaser would...") not dependent on any of our *subjective* intent. These "Other Relevant Considerations" seemed generally favorable (maybe those lobbying investments are effective). That being said, it seems like there are plenty of unfavorable parts of this, as noted in the other thread:
  2. I'm just a caveman who fell in some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know...many of the factors listed in the SEC Framework for "Investment Contract" Analysis of Digital assets are unfavorable to XRP's status in relation to Ripple, and even more so in the past than present. --Keyrock
  3. NightJanitor's description of Proof of Work (overlooking the language for this one, tsk-tsk):
  4. jbjnr with his opening post in the thread "Analysis of Ripple's XRP Sales" is a must read:
  5. Is there any interest in a year-end list of the top posts to XRP Chat? If so, voting may be unwieldy, so I suggest a nominating process followed by a decision from the moderators. This idea was sparked when I was reading a comment in the Island of Misfit Toys (i.e., Off-Topic) and thought there was a lot of quality content that may have been overlooked throughout the year elsewhere.
  6. Haha, point taken and fair enough. Call it my detachment from any reality.
  7. "Use case" -- The unparsimonious selection of this phrase (compare "use") and sincere renditions of the "making the world a better place" bit (that is, statements made earnestly about the world-changing attributes of the tech and not as a self-deprecating reference to HBO's Silicon Valley: https://vimeo.com/98720197) are my favorite indicators of the crypto clique's detachment from everyday reality.
  8. "402" --I believe a play on the HTTP status code
  9. This was an insightful take: Still, the notion that it is a "live controversy" in the public sphere that must be treated this way remains frustrating to many.
  10. https://www.coindesk.com/clayton-sec-ico-funding-security-offering The SEC chairman spoke in his personal capacity at Consensus: Invest. The excerpted non-answer-answer was specific to in temporal proximity to a mention of XRP's status.
  11. A bit of a non-answer update on the status of XRP today per Consensus Invest: https://www.coindesk.com/clayton-sec-ico-funding-security-offering
  12. Good call--looks like they updated the graphic with the new logo. At least someone is listening to our squawking, eh? https://www.polysign.io/
  13. This diamond comparison from another thread is decent as well:
  14. Is there any indication of what the source of the number used for volume traded globally, i.e., the denominator used to arrive at 17.2 basis points?: I'm mainly curious to know whether the volume figure used in the calculation has parameters which would exclude wash trading on certain exchanges with artificially inflated volume. I assume it would very much be in its interest to keep that volume figure accurate and to exclude false volume because otherwise third parties/former employees could point to that same volume as grounds to justify inflating their own sales.
  15. I was curious whether it would be possible to detect an uptick in XRP transaction volume attributable to remittances using a several assumptions, but the results were inconclusive. My assumptions, findings, and conclusions are detailed below. I gathered daily XRP/MXN volume from Bitso from October 1, 2018 (when xRapid went live). This is the blue data in the chart below. There are a variety of reasons that XRP volume increases and decreases any given day that would not be specific to XRP/MXN volume. In order to normalize the daily volume, I assumed the XRP/BTC volume would be reflective of general increases and decreases in all market activity. I gathered XRP/BTC daily volume from Bitso, averaged it, and divided the average by each day's XRP/BTC volume to create a multiplier. That way if volume was way up on a given day generally, the multiplier could be used to dampen the uptick in XRP/MXN volume and vice versa. I don't have a background in statistics, and this may not be (and likely isn't) a sound way to go about normalizing XRP/MXN volume. If so, I hereby invoke Cunningham's law. Normalized XRP/MXN volume is the daily XRP/MXN volume time the multiplier. This is the orange data in the chart below. My hypothesis was that normalized XRP/MXN volume would increase on or immediately after workers were paid. U.S. workers would get paid, go to Cuallix to send money to family in Mexico, the USD would be used to purchase XRP, XRP would be sold for MXN, and voila, increased volume. I've circled dates on which it would be common to pay U.S. workers (Fridays and mid-month--don't have end-of-month data yet). If there is a pattern there, I cannot detect it. Since we know that xRapid (and therefore XRP) is being used, there is probably some problem with my assumptions (e.g., remittances may not be most common on or immediately after a payday, the XRP/BTC data or may methodology may not be a good way to normalize volume, the transactions in question would not be reflected in Bitso's volume numbers for a given day because of the flow of the payment, etc.).
×
×
  • Create New...