Jump to content

Xrylite

Member
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Xrylite

  • Rank
    Regular

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Software Engineer
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In exchange services that are extremely focused on swapping one currency for another, the amount usually does impact the exchange rate. In this case, it doesn't appear so. From my walkthrough of both services, you'd get about $7 more through by going through Western Union because of the better rate. However, they do mention that it can take between 0 and 7 days. Yeah, by default, Moneygram was preset to cash pickup and had a much worse exchange rate. However, doing the same with Western Union took a notable exchange hit too. This is a good example of how there are hidden fees in the exchange rate even though they claim to have no fees.
  2. Yeah, it does seem weird, but it looks an awfully lot like it's just numbers in scientific notation. I'd agree with @Mr_Rippling that it is likely a formatting mishap, especially since these numbers appear to be small. Even if it were in the millions or billions, usually they just label it as "in numbers of millions". So, you'd know a label of 5 stood for 5,000,000. Assuming this is the case (essentially, each step is ±200,000): +4.E + 05 = 400000 +2.E + 05 = 200000 0.E + 00 = 0. -2.E + 05 = -200000 -4.E + 05 = -400000
  3. I ran the picture through Yandex Translate to get an idea of what the English labels would be. I'm not knowledgeable for certain, but some Googlin' suggests that Liquidity Index is generally how smooth their assets flow from one to another. So, maybe the negatives suggests a financial burden, whereas the positive suggests less friction (to use Ripple's slogan term).
  4. This is also an important note for anyone who uses exchanges services that claim to have no fees. Odds are if they have no fees, then their exchange rate will have a bigger gap to get that money anyway. There's no global exchange rate that everyone follows, so don't expect a fee-driven service to match what you'd find online either. I've had experiences in the past moving USD to CAD and the biggest factor of who I went with ended up being based on the exchange rate rather than the fees. I understand and accept that they need to make some sort of money to stay a business, but it is unnecessarily deceitful to say "We don't charge fees like our competitors!". Although, to say "We have a better exchange rate than our competitors!" is probably not as catchy and a bit more difficult for people to interpret at a glance.
  5. It may just be initial reaction to the quote snippets provided, but I don't really like the "unified" term. It sounds like they have a negative connotation to crypto as a whole, which suggests they don't understand it well enough. Yes, crypto can be used for illicit things, but so can money, gift cards, physical goods, or whatever else is a barter-able commodity. If anything, they should be more concerned by privacy-driven crypto if the whole KYC is the main concern.
  6. Massive respect for making such a logically sound and convincing statement. I thrive on logic and feel like I must agree that this may need to be the outcome that happens. You can absolutely see how crypto that aims to be anonymous can be a whole different maze in the legal realm. Yes, everyone would want some fairness and equality for everyone affected, but there's a dangerous line when it comes to the legality of decisions. Since we could track whose XRP moved where, we'd know exactly whose money was recovered. The only hurdle would be if all that money was sent to a single wallet, and then that single wallet sent a portion to another wallet, which was the one they actually recovered. In that case, we can't deduce whose money was chosen to be sent to that second wallet. In that case, I think they would need to fail back to the proportional split between everyone's money that landed in that first wallet. If this was a bank heist with physical money, the outcome would be different since the physical money would be agnostic to who it was stolen from. Conversely, if someone stole a bunch of jewelry from a repair shop, they wouldn't recover just your grandma's wedding ring and split that proportionally to everyone.
  7. I'm not shooting down the conspiracy that there's a reason for the same names, but it's also possible they like chanting these names so that people like us can be supporters of that type of partnership. If big companies saw that support and it yielded belief that it could increase profits, they'd be more on-board than if the company just said "believe us, this will help you." We're all hoping for one of these names to jump on board since it would be a gamechanger and bring crypto as a whole to even more topics of discussion.
  8. Just to be clear, I'm absolutely with you on your statements. Some people might have lost just one day's pay worth of money. However, others may have stored their emergency savings, personal loans, or possible even friend's or family's crypto investments to avoid having to teach everyone how to get into crypto. If GateHub has the finances to reimburse in full, that should be what they do. My only contesting stance is if paying everyone back immediately guaranteed bankruptcy, it's a bit hard to assume they'd make a moral action like that and destroy a business. Instead, it seems reasonable if they'd provide an even proportion to everyone now with a promise to try and reimburse the rest over time as the company grows. The bystander effect was taking place in this thread to where everyone said they wanted a class action, but nobody had the time, knowledge, or resources to do so. The comment from James yesterday is something I'd hope people follow up with... assuming that firm is actually excited about taking this case on and investigating and finding out how to step forward.
  9. I won't say it's perfect or a greatly improved clarity on what kind of financial recovery can happen, but they did actually address this somewhat at the end of their post/blog/statement. I agree that it's disappointing that they either don't have the funds or choose not to cover the loss as close to in full as possible. That would usually encourage them to fight harder because the recovery of funds would determine what they recuperate, not what you do.
  10. My opinion on this is that I'm not bothered by any selling going on because Ripple is still a very successful business. If they were pulling back on development of their suite of software or their partnerships were stagnant or dropping, then there'd be a red flag that they were just trying to sell as profitable as possible and fade away. This would be far more likely if there was another crypto choice out there that was arguably better and further implemented to where it would be impossible to compete. I believe there are a few that have claimed to be faster, which is perfectly fine, but they may be too late to catch up at this point. It's also entirely possible that their act of selling is there to appease the views of everyone else. One side says they should just burn away the escrow because the government doesn't want one business to have that much financial power, while the other side hates that they're dumping over time. Outside of expecting them to just throw away multi-millions worth of financial assets, there's no clean way for everyone to be happy.
  11. If I recall correctly, some of the interviews made it seem like it was either pretty similar costs to what they have in place now or only slightly better to where it wasn't beneficial to spend the resources adapting over. Either way, even if the savings were minimal, there are so many other perks that come that they don't acknowledge... such as the near instantaneous transfer of money. If the cost is the same or similar, then they should be comparing other advantages that would come with the change to XRP to know if it would appease their customers more and incur growth and income in that manner.
  12. They don't lose money directly, but they miss out on the ability to make money off those people. Essentially, every place has some sort of withdraw fee when moving money out. So, if you withdraw everything and move out, they're going to get one last bit of fees in, but going forward you aren't keeping them financed from future withdrawls. The same concept would apply if nobody used the service as they wouldn't have any income from people using the service, but they still have costs that are going to exist regardless.
  13. I'm very aware about what I'm asking... seriously. I don't believe the tracking would need to be directly stored within Coil (their servers) to know what to do at the end of the month. The extension itself could do that accumulation locally and they could either allow you to process your monthly totals or automated it. Isn't the way they do the tracking now to determine active viewing reasonably similar? (not sure too much on how things function behind the scenes). Honestly, I just fear that the active-viewing is at risk since they'll either over-pay because your viewing is well-beyond normal and pays out more than the subscription; or they'll under-pay or dissuade people from using the service since the subscription would likely need to be higher to stay sustainable. I can understand a few suggestions of loading up your own wallet and pulling from that, but I feel like it would need to be done well enough so that AFKing on a site, whether in an active or background tab, is not draining your wallet. Plus, what happens if you open multiple browser windows (or browsers in general), does that viewing time stack? Quite a few rhetorical questions or ones I don't expect full answers too, but I do feel the idea is great, but it does need some work to keep it growing safely.
  14. At least with my electrical company (US - midwest), they have the option for me to opt into receiving renewable energy only (wind/solar). Although, this just means they charge me a higher rate since they're obviously not running a new electrical line that only comes from the solar panels or wind turbines. So, I still receive the same energy I would normally from the same pool, but that premium is more of an investment for them to build more panels/turbines. So, if there are Bitcoin farms that also pay that premium or put up these panels themselves, then good on them. However, they would be actively opting to pass on profit unless their respective governments/electrical companies are the ones forcing them to go that route.
  15. Is there an obvious reason why this system doesn't just base payments on the proportions of viewing? So, if I spend 10 hours on siteA and 30 hours on siteB throughout the month, then that monthly subscription would give 25% to siteA and 75% to siteB. Say the Coil people take 10% or something, then your $5 subscription would have $0.50 going to Coil for growth and maintenance, $1.125 to siteA, and $3.375 to siteB. The end goal is ideally to support the sites and services that you actually use, but they obviously can't survive if they don't have a rate that stays under (on average across all subscriptions) the monthly subscription. This week alone, Games Done Quick (charity marathon on Twitch) would have streamed for ~7 days straight. Since I've left the stream up essentially all-day every day (168 hours), wouldn't they have generated $80+ off of just my $5 subscription?
×
×
  • Create New...