Jump to content

JA8

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About JA8

  • Rank
    Advanced

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The EOS ruling was extremely positive for the space. Ripple never ran an ICO, so it seems extremely unlikely they would be fined. The important thing that came out of the ruling was: "This settlement resolves all ongoing matters between Block.one and the SEC."
  2. Today's EOS settlement apparently "resolves all ongoing matters between Block.one and the SEC". This ruling of course completely undermines anything on the CRC website. It also sets a precedent for XRP since both are utility tokens. The only remaining potential issue I can think of would relate to the amount of XRP held by the founders of XRP / Ripple compared to the amount of EOS held by the founders of EOS / Block.one. I don't have this data to compare - if anyone has the info please post here.
  3. That's a fairly surprising take on that, I'd say. I definitely don't see BTC breaking down to those levels at all. I'd put the chances of a drop to $5k at less than 5%. I am expecting a break up (most likely), or at the very least further sideways consolidation.
  4. 3-4 years ago I’d have agreed with you, but we’re more than halfway through 2019. The uptake for xRapid has been far slower than Ripple has been aiming for, and this is a legitimate concern.
  5. To be fair to you, I can infer from the above you don't have very much real-life business experience. The rest of it is lost on me, I'm afraid.
  6. Absolutely spot on. I don't buy the NDA arguments either. I'm not discounting the possibility that there may be a few partnerships under NDA, but from many years in business I can say honestly, NDAs don't work - they invariably get leaked, and it usually doesn't take long. It is much more likely that there isn't much under NDA. That likelihood aside, perhaps I'm a little confused about the Dharma Partnership. Given the fact they are not using XRP/L, it seems no different than if Xpring were to gift the Ethereum Foundation multiple $millions. Am I'm missing something? I mean, I'm sure Vitalik would be very grateful, and I'm sure Xpring could benefit *financially* in some way from such a partnership, but it wouldn't do the tiniest thing to fulfil Xpring's primary remit: This is patently untrue at this point. As per the above quote, it is a *condition of investment* and the main reason for Xpring's very existence. Making the assumption that Xpring's startups are - in spite of their flagrantly ignoring XRP/L - nonetheless loosely investing in the XRP ecosystem are fluffy at best. The most important criteria for investment is clearly and simply not being fulfilled.
  7. Back to the point. Brad said (paraphrasing): “We are supporting businesses building with XRP, ie. Dharma and Forte”. Dharma and Forte said “We are not building anything with XRP”. This - at the very least - tells us that XRP-related partnerships that Ripple can really shout about are very thin on the ground. Why would Brad use such a poor example? It looks like there is little he can point to. According to Ripple, xPring funding is all about furthering adoption and reach of XRP and the XRPL. This is not happening. Why not?
  8. Am I to understand that Coil doesn’t make this clear themselves? If not, they need to step up big time.
  9. You are paying, just in another way. "Free" can be insidious. Behaviour modification mechanisms are often baked-in to platforms wherein the user *is* the product. Facebook (for example) monitors responsiveness to advertising and continuously attempts to alter your behaviour in subtle ways to increase click-through rates. This in turn changes the wiring of your brain. One becomes reliant on pellet-sized dopamine hits, increasing anxiety and depression over time. Take a whole crowd of anxious, depressed, behaviourally-modified users and you'll eventually end up with a festering breeding ground for political divisiveness and anger. It has become dangerous. These types of effects have been discussed at length by the likes of Jaron Lanier. If Coil can disrupt the "user as product" business model then I think it could be a very healthy thing. Personally, I've reached the point where I'm starving for quality content. I'm tired of the whole Ouroboros thing. The zeitgeist may work in Coil's favour as we become more conscientious. I believe the internet experience will - indeed must - change. I would even argue that it's an evolutionary necessity.
  10. Yes they do. No retail XRP interest = guaranteed failure for xRapid.
  11. @Valhalla_Guy Seems like you know your history, and refreshingly it’s not the popular version rewritten by liberal academics. I’m a fan of Dinesh D’Souza as well. But your rant is a bit disproportionate here, like using a mallet to kill a flea.
  12. Sure. Retail market participants like us (i.e. those using crypto exchanges) provide a base level of liquidity (both fiat and XRP) without which xRapid cannot really function at present. Until such time xRapid partner-fuelled liquidity eclipses the base liquidity we provide, then Ripple is extremely reliant on us. Partner-driven xRapid liquidity is unlikely to eclipse retail liquidity for quite some time. I can’t really answer your last question as there are too many variables, and I would not presume to know enough of them. But of course it goes without saying that without people trading XRP, xRapid cannot even begin to crawl.
  13. The XRP community may be small, but without it, they simply do not have a product called xRapid because exchange liquidity would be approximately zero. They could do worse than make some moves to keep the community happy, and to encourage more market participants. So, I agree with you on this. They ought to take some responsibility, if not purely as an act of kindness then at least as a savvy business move. Maybe they will.
×
×
  • Create New...