Jump to content

Xrylite

Member
  • Posts

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xrylite

  1. I keep having to chant the same thing all the time. The only thing that has me holding on is that Ripple is still implementing their solution into new business all the time. The moment that they start getting removed and replaced is when I'll be forced to consider other options. I truly want this growth to eventually be the new norm to where businesses need Ripple to stay competitive. I'm just disappointed that years can go by without the value representing the growth and real-world implementations. I'm raw to the statements that claim that this is normal... that next year is definitely the year! That whales and bots and manipulation control everything. That regulation (or no regulation) or the SEC's decision will suddenly change everything. And I'm above-and-beyond tired of the whole market shifting at the same time when there was no news that blanket-effects all crypto. I'm absurdly optimistic in life, but I have a massively higher value for logistics. Right now, the price doesn't feel like it follows logic. The closest I can say is that people are absolutely psychologically and sociologically manipulated to act based on what they hear. Those people are the same ones that sought after celebrity appearance, name-brand goods, and are the prime people for targeted advertising. People need to stand strong and make their own decisions, else massive shifts can happen just based on one person's input.
  2. In specific regards to market cap, you're absolutely correct that if half a crypto's supply was burned, the market cap at that moment would also be halved. A large reason why they didn't suddenly drop way down in market cap is that it doesn't seem like what they burned was ever in the circulating supply (which is what we use to determine market cap). Since there's a smaller maximum circulating supply, that scarcity should drive up the price. If I like XLM at $0.08 each when I anticipated a 100B supply, then it's reasonable to say that I'd accept XLM at $0.16 each if the supply was half as big. It's not a perfect example because some of the price influence is going to be based on what's circulating right now as opposed to however long in the future. The thing that's interesting with circulating supply in crypto is that it's all just a number. We could absolutely have a crypto out there with a circulating supply of 1 (or even less) and it would continue to function just fine (barring tech limitations/concerns of how that number is stored). It just means we'd be buying small decimals instead of whole numbers. There are absolutely psychological factors to owning big numbers of something. In a commerce world, I would also rather pay 5 XRP for a soda than 0.00016 BTC. Less leading zeroes to get lost in.
  3. These are the statements that keep needing to be reiterated every time this topic comes up. Anything that removes circulating supply will yield a price increase as a whole. However, it is impossible for someone to remove their crypto from the supply, but also come out profitable. Imagine the following scenario where Stellar Foundation owns 80B XLM, while you own 20B XLM: +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | Who | Supply Owned | Market Value | Net Value | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | Stellar Foundation | 80B XLM | $0.08 USD | $6.4B USD | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | You | 20B XLM | $0.08 USD | $1.6B USD | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ If Stellar decided to remove 50% of the total supply, then, to maintain the same market cap, the value of XLM should go up by 100%. Obviously this didn't happen and part of that reason is that not all the supply was in circulation, but this is all hypothetical to show the math behind why this is unreasonable. Assuming that they committed to remove 50B of their XLM so that the total supply goes from 100B to 50B. We get left with this: +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | Who | Supply Owned | Market Value | Net Value | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | Stellar Foundation | 30B XLM | $0.16 USD | $4.8B USD | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ | You | 20B XLM | $0.16 USD | $3.2B USD | +--------------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+ This yields them a net loss of $1.6B USD, while you have a net gain of $1.6B USD. This is because they own proportionally less of the total market cap than they did pre-burn. The only scenario that would be fair to everyone (and to maintain net value) is to proportionally burn the 50B in total from everyone. In this case, they'd burn 40B, while you burn 10B. Sadly though, this does absolutely nothing to increase the value of the crypto.
  4. "use" and "sell" are unfortunately the part that's unverifiable. I must admit that I'm pretty proud of the community for not just opting in because free things are free. There are probably legitimate people that may actually use them for their purpose. Assuming they're confident in the people behind the product, storing BitCoin on any secure hardware wallet is better than an exchange. That's exactly it. There's a pretty expansive ravine between people who believe in XRP and people who believe in BTC. Nothing wrong with believing you can hold BTC for profit, but I don't think most people here would ever hold BTC because they thought it was a better product.
  5. Just need a community vote to rename our beloved crypto to EXRP... or AxeRP? Sponsorship? Free samples?
  6. These are the two main points to take in. The first is that Ripple, the company, doesn't have any control in what you do with your XRP. They're also unable to recover it for you if you lost your secret key; or if someone stole your XRP and moved it to their own wallet. Ripple simply develops software to help XRP function. It would be unacceptable for any crypto solution, including the XRP Ledger, to allow a third party determine whether your crypto is legitimately yours or not. As for freezing funds, when people refer to "exchanges", this isn't something that any exchange can do. It depends on their approach to how deposits are done. With some exchanges, you're actually sending your crypto to that company's wallet. In a sense, you're just giving them your crypto. These exchanges are the ones that big, bold, red-text the message that a memo is required for deposits. This is because that memo ID is what connects that deposit to the account your made with them. It's so they know that you, specifically, sent those funds. Without a memo, it's just a blind deposit that they can't associate with any account (which they sometimes send back automatically). Your account with them is your interface that lets you say "I sent you 35XRP in total so far. I'm requesting for you to send 22XRP to this other wallet." You never have direct access to their company wallet. Instead, you only has access to make requests. The freezing itself doesn't pertain to the wallet or the literal funds, but it's the account you actually log into... the account you need access to to make those withdraw requests. Without the account, you don't have a say in where any of the XRP you deposited should go.
  7. Headlines or, in this case, brief one-liners catch more attention and sway minds more than the deceptive details they could detail. Although I'm a bit skeptical on this one, there could certainly be factual statements being made, but they know that the first impressions a reader gets are going to be what they want you to believe. It's like if an article headlined "4 out of 5 dentists agree that a metal file is more efficient than brushing!". There are so many ways that can be factual, but still deceptive: Is this for removing rust from a pipe? Are these dentists still practicing? Which country? Maybe this is quantitatively able to remove more plaque from your teeth, but how much damage is going to be caused in doing so? How is the efficiency judged? Who ran this study, MetalFiles LLC? Who sponsored this study?
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. I just can't see a future where BTC survives once crypto is more directly involved in real-world interactions. It has too many issues with performance, how it functions, what it's susceptible to, and how it can improve. I completely agree with the points you made (pairing, largest investors, psychological aspects) since they are absolutely accurate and what I'd say is true to what is keeping BTC hoisted up. However, none of them beyond maybe pairing matters all that much in actual use cases. And, since BTC isn't focused on being a bridge crypto, I don't think the pairings even matter all that much once banks/exchanges keep expanding out their pair options. BTC certainly won't drop off the charts anytime soon, but I believe it'll dwindle down and be slowly surpassed as the generally uninformed person starts seeing news or appearances of these other crypto options (and they stop referring to all crypto as "bitcoin").
  24. I hope u realize that u have to pay taxes on that transaction. Taxes now vs taxes later doesn't really matter outside of trying to save on taxes with long term capital gains/losses vs short term capital gains/losses. He'd only be paying (or receiving a refund) for the profits/loss that happened, so there's nothing negative about selling and buying back outside of the fees associated with trading/withdrawing.
  25. Bitrue may be like some/most exchanges where, when you send the crypto, you're sending it to the same address as everyone else. However, it's the destination tag/memo/ID that lets them know that you are the one that sent those funds and you "own" that portion of the funds. Through your account with them, they'd only display and allow you to withdraw and trade the portion that you "own". This is why you'll see warnings on some deposits that have big bold red letters that say you must include a destination tag/memo/ID or your funds won't clear through to your account. Since they control the secret key to that aggregate wallet, it gives them the safety of not having to manage concerns about leaked secret keys (like GateHub was having), but I believe it also gives them full control of the funds in that wallet since it's truly their wallet that you're sending your deposits to. Assuming I'm not slipping wrong words or concepts, this would allow them to "reverse" the transaction by agreeing that the account in question is the fraudulent one and they'd just lock the account within their service and send the crypto back. It's a bit similar to how banks work. You give them your money and they have access to all of it. Your account just shows you what portion of their supply you're allow to move around. If you were found to try and launder money, that bank could certainly close your account and send the funds that they possess that you deposited.
×
×
  • 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.